证明责任的程序法理

Form and Substance of Burden of Proof

最高法院新《证据规定》没有如很多人期待的那样,对不同类型民事诉讼案件具体证明责任分配规则进行明细化规定。表面上"消失的"证明责任分配规则,实则隐含了深刻的程序法理。证明责任的形式依据与实质原则具有一致性。证明责任的形式论与实质论对峙,源于缺乏程序思维。程序视角下,证明责任无论在价值目标还是规范意义上,都是典型的程序规则。把证明责任当作解决证明难问题的工具是对其制度价值的误解。证明责任的实质性依据并非实体法的立法目的,而是程序公平原则。正确适用实体法本身不足以保证公平分配证明责任。实践证明,证明责任法定化是不可能实现的乌托邦。立足程序"制约权力(利)—沟通合意"的价值机理,运用程序思维与程序方法,是实现证明责任形式与实质整合可能的路径。应当承认法官在证明责任分配上的自由裁量权,并通过程序限制其恣意。

The new Evidence Provisions of the Supreme Court do not,as many would have expected,provide for detailed rules for the allocation of specific burden of proof in different types of civil proceedings.The"vanishing"rule of burden distribution implies profound procedural jurisprudence.The formal basis of the burden of proof is consistent with the principle of substance.The reason for the confrontation between the formalism of burden of proof and the theory of substance is the lack of procedural thinking.From the point of view of procedure,the burden of proof is a typical procedure rule in both the value objective and the normative sense.Taking the burden of proof as a tool to solve the difficult problem of proof is a misunderstanding of its institutional value.The substantive basis of burden of proof is not the legislative purpose of substantive law,but the principle of procedural fairness.The proper application of substantive law itself is not sufficient to ensure a fair distribution of the burden of proof.It has been proved by practice that the legalization of burden of proof is an impossible utopia.Based on the value mechanism of program"Constraints-Dialogue-Consensus",the application of program thinking and program method is a possible way to prove the form of responsibility and essence.Judges\discretion in the distribution of burden of proof should be recognized and their arbitrariness should be restricted by procedure.