《民事证据新规》视野下自认制度审判排除效的再探讨

《民事证据新规》整体上肯定并扩充了当事人的自认规则，但是《民事证据新规》第八条第二款延续了《民诉法解释》第九十二条第三款的立法精神，对自认制度的审判排除效予以限制。限制的根本原因是事实探知绝对化的审判理念和实体正义价值追求的传统惯性，直接原因是规制虚假诉讼的现实需求。但是建构规范意义上的自认制度应坚持事实探知相对化的审判理念，协调当事人意思自治与事实探知的关系，追求程序正义与实体正义的平衡。为规制虚假诉讼而限制审判排除效的做法并非治本之策，规制虚假诉讼的最优选应当是废除事实预决效力并为当事人设置真实义务。自认制度来源于辩论主义自然也应回归于辩论主义，回归辩论主义的自认制度以审判排除效为核心，《民事证据新规》第八条第二款则失去正当性。自认制度审判排除效的应用必须考虑不同案件诉讼环境的差异与相对性。 

From the Perspective of"Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation"Re-discussion on the Effect of Preclusion of the Self-admission System

The “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” as a whole affirmed and expanded the self-admission rules, but the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” Article 8 paragraph 2 continued the legal spirit of Article 92, Paragraph 3 of the “Comprehension and Application of Judicial Interpretation of the Procedural Law” stipulates that the effect of preclusion of the self-admission system is restricted. Why the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigations” restrict the effect of preclusion of self-admission system? The fundamental reason is the traditional inertia of the absoluteness of facts exploration and the pursuit of substantive justice values. The direct cause is the actual demand for regulating collusive litigation. However, to construct a normative self-admission system should adhere to the relativization of facts exploration, coordinate the relationship between party autonomy and facts exploration, and pursue a balance between procedural justice and substantive justice. The practice of restricting the effect of preclusion to regulate collusive litigation does not pay for the gains. The most preferable way to regulate collusive litigation should be to abolish pre-determinant force and set an honesty obligation for the parties. Tracing back to the source, the self-admission system originated from the doctrine of debate and naturally should return to the doctrine of debate. The self-admission system that returns to the doctrine of debate centers on the effect of preclusion. Article 8 paragraph 2 of the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” loses legitimacy. The application of the effect of preclusion of self-admission system must consider the difference and relativity of the litigation environment of different cases.