证据失权的司法生态之省察

Investigation of Lawmaker: on the Judicial Situation of the Evidence Disqulification Rule

若说证据失权在中国缺乏适于生长的土壤,偏偏它又一直跃然于法律文本之上。若说它已然有足够的理由面对正当性的指责,可在对其司法运作现状观察之后却发现,立法者的愿望终成虚话。在具体案件之中,法官依然没有像立法者所期待的那般"机智"而"勇敢"地就证据失权作出裁断。对当下司法生态考察和分析的结果显示,法官并未完整地展示其三个"自由裁量权"是如何在立法者所设定的三条"底线"之上运作的。这大概反映了人们在面对形式正义与实质正义时的纠结心态。是故,只有放弃实质正义的迷思,承认并尊重形式正义的合理性和现实性,证据失权才能在民事诉讼中找到其应有的位置。

The evidence disqulification rule has been in the statutes despite of lack of appropriate condition. The rule could not face up with the criticism on the justification after the investigation on the judicial practice. The judge could not make clever and brave decision as the lawmaker expect in some cases. The investigation shows that judge has not completely operated in accordance with the bottom line marked by the lawmaker. That probably suggests the battle between the substantial justice and formal justice. So we should the get rid of the myth of substantial justice and admit the reasonableness and feasibility of formal justice, then the evidence disqulification rule could find its right location in civil procedural law.