为什么不应当重建证据失权——为现行司法政策辩护

The Reason for Not Restoring the Inadmissibility of Overdue Evidence Regime:A Defense for the Current Judicial Policies

对当事人逾期举证且存在重大过错的行为,《民事诉讼法解释》第102条第1款实际上选择了证据不失权,一些学者近年来撰文提出应当摒弃"采纳+罚款",重建证据失权制度。本文认为,实行不失权的司法政策是有充分理由的,不失权才能与《中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定》中提出的"三符合"的诉讼制度的要求相吻合。因严重阻碍实体公正,2001年《民事证据规定》采用的证据失权未能通过实践的检验,已被证明是一次不成功的尝试。失权不是举证期限制度的必备要素,"采纳+罚款"的举证期限制度在实务中已发挥了积极作用。对部分法官未依法对当事人罚款的问题,应当直接针对问题采取必要的解决办法,而不是重新回到证据失权。

For the party’s overdue submission of evidence and gross fault,Paragraph 1 of Article102 in the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court of Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement Procedures in the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China actually chooses not to adopt the system of inadmissibility of overdue evidence.In recent years,some scholars have published articles suggesting that the current practice of"admission +fine"should be discarded and the regime of inadmissibility of overdue evidence should be restored.In this paper,we argue that there are good reasons for implementing the judicial policy of the admission of overdue evidence,for this is more consistent with the requirements of the"three-conformities"imposed upon the litigation system by the Decision of the Central Comm ittee of the Comm unist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Advancing Rule of Law.Due to its serious obstruction of substantive justice,the regime of the inadmissibility of overdue evidence adopted in the Civil Evidence Regulations(2001)failed to pass the test of practice,which has proved to be an unsuccessful attempt.The inadmissibility of evidence is not an essential element of the system governing the time frame of evidence submission.The system of "admission + fine"governing the time frame of evidence submission has played a positive role in practice.As for the issues such as some judges’ failure to fine the parties who have violated the system governing the time frame of evidence submission in accordance with the law,necessary solutions should be taken to directly deal with the problem proper rather than returning to the regime of inadmissibility of overdue evidence.