我國國民參與審判的實踐與憲法挑戰

Abstract

國民參與審判為我國自民國100年起迄今，持續推動的刑事司法改革重點推動項目，從109年7月22日立法院三讀通過、8月12日總統公布「國民法官法」以來，歷經2年多的籌備，自112年1月1日起正式上路，施行迄今已屆滿兩年時間。 讓不具審判專業知識、經驗的一般素人參與刑事審判，為我國全新的經驗。本文認為，大規模引進新制度，一方面要以其制度理念改變既有法制內涵，一方面又必須順應既有法律體系的價值，而其中憲法所設定的基本原則，構成其最基本的底線。故本文擬探討國民法官制度的合憲性課題，分析在我國既有法律制度下引進國民參與審判，要如何在追求實現制度目的同時，滿足我國憲法規範的基本法治價值。 本文主要架構如下：一、提出問題：簡介國民法官制度在我國的推動與在我國憲法規範下可能產生的合憲性課題。二、探討國民法官制度的目的與正當性基礎：先介紹人民參與審判的起源與流辯，次討論引進國民參與審判「可能」的正當目的，再分析、檢討我國國民法官制度目的是否妥適，以及簡單檢視目前國民法官的實際實踐情形是否有助於達成其制度目的。三、與國民參與審判相關的憲法原則與基本權規定：簡要分析在我國憲法規範與憲法解釋、裁判實務上，已發展出哪些與刑事審判相關之基本原則，將構成本文所稱的憲法基本原則。四、憲法對國民參與審判的容許性：在此擬深入探討：（一）我國憲法規範是否容許不具法官身分的國民成為審判者；（二）採取國民與法官合審合判制度模式，會產生哪些合憲性課題與對應；（三）比較觀察陪審制（法官完全退出事實認定）的合憲性課題；（四）討論國民法官法不採取「當事人程序選擇權」的制度選擇及其所生合憲性課題。五、符合公平審判理念的國民參與審判審理程序：在此擬從「獨立而公正的法院」、「符合公平審判精神的審理程序」、「上訴審審查的適法性控制功能」、「國民法官法創造的歧異與平等權」等幾個面向，討論國民法官法之具體設計是否滿足憲法要求的公平審判原則，並延伸探討實務應如何運作，才能契合此一公平審判理念。 最後，據此提出本文結論。本文認為，我國憲法並未禁止由國民參與刑事審判，國民法官法的制度設計，原則上也合乎憲法規範的要求；但在實際運作層面，如何遵循「由獨立公正的審判者依據法規範與證據理性作成判斷」這一公平審判的基本價值，則仍面臨一定的挑戰，為法院審理適用時所應注意。本文並據此嘗試提出若干現況觀察心得、建議與未來展望。

Citizen participation in criminal trials has been a central focus of Taiwan’s criminal justice reform since 2011. Following years of legislative debate and institutional planning, the Legislative Yuan passed the Citizen Judges Act on July 22, 2020; it was promulgated by the President on August 12, 2020, and formally implemented on January 1, 2023. For the first time in Taiwan’s history, lay citizens without professional judicial training participate in the adjudication of serious criminal cases, representing both a significant institutional innovation and a fundamental shift in Taiwan’s criminal adjudication structure. This paper argues that the large-scale introduction of such an institution must pursue two interrelated objectives: transforming the legal framework in line with the normative ideals of lay participation, while remaining consistent with the core constitutional principles underpinning Taiwan’s legal order. Against this backdrop, the paper examines the constitutionality of the Citizen Judges System and explores how its institutional objectives can be reconciled with Taiwan’s constitutional framework. The analysis proceeds as follows: (1) an overview of the Citizen Judges System and the constitutional concerns it raises; (2) an assessment of the institutional objectives and normative justifications for lay participation, including its historical development, theoretical foundations, and the extent to which early implementation aligns with these aims; (3) identification of constitutional principles and fundamental rights relevant to citizen participation in adjudication; (4) an examination of the constitutional permissibility of lay adjudication, addressing (a) whether non-professional citizens may serve as adjudicators, (b) the challenges posed by the mixed court (judge-lay panel) system, (c) a comparative analysis of the jury system, and (d) the constitutional implications of the absence of procedural choice for the parties; and (5) an evaluation of whether the procedural design of the Citizen Judges Act satisfies the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, including judicial independence and impartiality, procedural fairness, appellate review, legality control, and equal protection. The paper concludes that Taiwan’s Constitution does not preclude citizen participation in criminal trials and that the Act’s overall design is, in principle, constitutionally sound. Nonetheless, ensuring that adjudication reflects the core value of “rational decision-making by an independent and impartial tribunal based on law and evidence” remains a pressing challenge. The paper concludes with practical recommendations and reflections for the system’s future development.