论司法解释的行权规则

On the Rules of Judicial Interpretation

司法解释引发的诸多实践争议,皆因制定机关权力行使尺度不明而起。作为规范司法解释权的主要法律条款,《立法法》第119条第1款过于简约且刚性不足,难以对司法解释制定形成有效约束。“有规范而无规则”是司法解释领域亟待解决的问题。根据相关法律及全国人大常委会出台的工作文件,能够推导出司法解释行权应当遵循的三项规则。第一,对于《立法法》第11条规定的只能制定法律的事项,司法解释不得作创设性规定。第二,《各级人民代表大会常务委员会监督法》第33条禁止司法解释与法律相抵触;其中,抵触的范围涵盖除与解释对象冲突外的所有法律,抵触的成立取决于规范模态或规范目的的不一致性。第三,根据《法规、司法解释备案审查工作办法》第39条,司法解释不得明显缺乏适当性;对此,可将司法解释视为手段、待实现的法律意旨作为目的,借由比例原则加以检视。唯有权力行使依序符合上述规则,其结果才具备合法性与适当性,是正当的司法解释。

Many controversies arising from judicial interpretations are caused by the unclear boundaries of the powers of the interpreting bodies.Article 119.1 of the Legislation Law,as the main legal provision regulating judicial interpretation,is too brief and lacks rigidity to effectively restrict the formulation of judicial interpretation.“There are norms but no rules”is an urgent problem to be solved in China's judicial interpretation system.Looking at the relevant laws and working documents issued by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress,we can derive three key rules that should guide the exercise of judicial interpretative power.First,in matters that are stipulated in Article 11 of the Legislation Law as requiring legislation,judicial interpretations cannot make creative provisions.Second,Article 33 of the Law on Supervision of Standing Committees of People's Congresses at Various Levels prohibits judicial interpretations from contradicting laws.The scope of contradiction includes all laws except those in direct conflict with the subject of interpretation.Whether a contradiction exists is determined by the consistency of normative modalities or normative purposes.Finally,according to Article 39 of the Measures for the Recordation Review of Regulations and Judicial Interpretations,judicial interpretations should not be conspicuously lacking in reasonableness.In this regard,judicial interpretations can be considered as a means and the legislative intention as an end,which allows for an evaluation through the principle of proportionality.Only if the power to issue judicial interpretations is exercised in accordance with these rules in a sequential manner can the results be considered legal and appropriate,and thus constitute a legitimate judicial interpretation.