宪法司法化三议

反对宪法司法化的学者主要有两点理由:一是可以通过宪政立法的方式将公民的宪法权利具体化,用这些具体法律去保障公民宪法权利的实现,因而从根本上看不需要宪法规范的直接司法适用;二是宪法规范只是行为规则,不是裁判规则,不具备可司法性。对这两点,我不表赞成。首先,公民的某些宪法权利不可能也不需要用宪政立法的方式具体化,因此宪政立法虽然重要,但不可能替代宪法司法化的价值;其次,宪法中虽然有一些纲领性权利规范不具有可司法性,但多数宪法规范既是行为规则,又是裁判规则,具有可司法性。当然,就宪法司法化的具体操作而言,在受案机关上,出于对法治成本的考虑,可以利用现行普通法院系统,而不必另行设立宪法法院专司违宪诉讼案件;在受案范围上,只宜受理具体行为违宪案件,而不应行使对立法的合宪性的审查权和对国家机关权力争议的审查权;在受案程序上,可以适用民事诉讼程序、行政诉讼程序、行政处罚前置等程序,而不必单独设立一套宪法案件的司法诉讼程序;在宪法解释上,应依据经验法则限制在常识范围内,不应作扩大或者限制解释。

Three Opinions on the Constitutional Judicature

Those jurists hold the following two main reasons to object the constitutional judicature, the first is the citizen's constitutional right can be guaranteed by the concrete laws which are rooted from the constitution, and essentially no need for the direct constitutional judicature, and the second is the constitution, just act regulation, not justice regulation, has no nature of judicature. The author disagrees with the two ideas. The article says, that there is no possibility or need for the materialization of some constitutional rights via legislation, so the value of constitutional judicature can not be taken place by legislation. Further more, the article states that in the constitution, some general right regulations have no nature of judicature, but most regulations are not only act regulations, but also justice regulations, having the nature of judicature though the legal result is relatively simple. Another, the article presents some advice for the concrete operation for the constitutional judicature.