| Abstract: | 司法行政權的本質是行政權，但因為行政的對象是司法人員和司法決定，難 免涉及審判獨立的制度性保障，因此如何經由行政權的適當行使，使司法人員能 以最負責的態度來行使其審判權，而讓人民的訴訟權（司法受益權）得到最高的 滿足，國家的法律秩序也得到最大的維護，在此同時，卻又能給予審判獨立最大 的尊重，很重要的關鍵，即在司法行政權的正確定位，並在此基礎上建立合理的 組織。各國司法行政權的組織與功能強弱，有相當大的差異，反映了各該國司法 權的不同歷史條件，從而產生不同的挑戰，與回應挑戰的制度設計，往往也表現 於對效率與獨立優先次序的決定。歐陸國家近年有把司法行政權從一般行政權中 獨立出來的趨勢，和台灣自一九八零年起由司法院掌理全國司法行政，可謂不謀 而合。不同的是，各國檢察機關刑事訴訟程序中的角色功能雖與法院涇渭分明， 但歐陸國家在組織上幾乎都由同一機關掌理審判和檢察的行政，而非如我國分隸 兩個個機關。大法官第一七五號解釋又賦予司法院獨立提出法律案的職權，使其 實質上主導了司法決策與制度改革，也為各國少見。至於我國未來在「司法院審 判機關化」的政策下，走向由單一的終審法院兼理司法行政，更是十分獨特的設 計，且不論其對憲法審判和行政訴訟的影響如何，對於司法行政功能即將產生重 大的影響，究竟利弊如何，值得深入探究。由於司法行政作用的特殊，觸及幾項 憲法基本原則的敏感神經，到目前為止甚少受到國內行政法學者的關注，近年司 法組織的變革雖引起若干討論，但討論的面向也多限於審判權的分合，未從司法 行政的面向深入研究。司法院大法官在第五三○、五三九號解釋中，以對於司法 行政權做了憲法上的定位，深值注意，申請人即擬在此一基礎上，從各國制度發 展最新趨勢、我國司法制度的演進，更進一步的探討司法行政權的應有內涵與相 關組織、程序問題。
The essence of judicial administration should be executive, instead of judicative. However, since the exertion of this power could easily encroach upon the realm of judicial power, which should be kept so much independent as possible according to the Constitution, it is therefore a rather crucial issue, how to administer properly the judiciary, especially how to organize this administrative power. Different models in response to this issue can be found in countries where rule of law is followed as a principle. Behind these models are quite different historical conditions, which again reflect state-society relations of each country. Depending on that, priority is given to either independence, efficiency, or accountability. Yet a tendency is more and more ostensible in European countries, that this power of judicial administration be drawn out of general executive power. This makes the very unique status of our Judicial Yuan look no more so unique. Still, judges and prosecutors in Taiwan are put under different systems of judicial administration, while their counterpart in Europe are not set apart. The Judicial Yuan also maintains the power to propose bills having to do with judicial affairs to the Parliament, independently or jointly –so long it is related to criminal lawwith the Executive Yuan, which is not imaginable in Europe. In future the Judicial Yuan would deviate further from this model, due to the Interpretation No.530, which requires this originally executive power to merge with the three last instance courts, to exert judicial power at the same time. This would again make the Judicial Yuan very unique. This project intends to explore, from historical perspective and comparative perspective as well, the content of judicial administrative power of the Judicial Yuan and tries to make suggestions as to its organization and procedure, so that it could more adaptively respond to the demands of the judiciary and the people.
Judicial administration;judicial independence;judicial accountability;Judicial Yuan;judicial conference;judges;prosecutors;case load;monism;dualism |
