虚假诉讼检察监督的类型化建构

A Typology of Procuratorial Supervision of False Litigation

检察机关已成为当前虚假诉讼治理体系中的支柱,发挥着不可替代的作用。但司法实践中,虚假诉讼检察监督权定位不够清晰,程序适用标准不一,其主要原因在于忽视了虚假诉讼案件的多元性,尚未形成类型化的虚假诉讼检察监督体系。虚假诉讼检察监督的程序原理是修复法院审判权、补全“对抗—判定”之诉讼结构,权力属性上兼具行政面向和司法面向。不同类型虚假诉讼的检察监督程序原理不同,适用的权力逻辑存在差异,类型化建构具备必要性和正当性。基于虚假诉讼检察监督的程序原理和权力属性,本文将虚假诉讼分为公益侵害型、私益侵害型、政策规避型三类,并针对性地构建多元检察监督模式。公益侵害型虚假诉讼指以侵害国家利益和社会公共利益为主要目的的虚假诉讼行为,以侵害“公有财产性利益”和“重大公共利益”为核心范畴,检察机关应强化介入的主动性、职权性和预防性,以事中监督为主,法院有义务通知检察机关出庭。私益侵害型虚假诉讼指以侵害特定民事主体的合法权益为主要目的之虚假诉讼行为,核心范畴是当事人或第三人的民事权益,对诉讼秩序等公共利益的侵害程度有限,检察机关应恪守被动性和谦抑性,以事后监督为主。政策规避型虚假诉讼指以逃避政策监管、规避政策要求为目的、对公共利益侵害不大的虚假诉讼行为,检察机关应谨慎介入,将问题交由行政决策机制处理。

After the transfer of the anti-corruption and anti-malfeasance functions,procuratorial supervision of false litigation has become a new growth point of the procuratorial business,but the defective system design has led to chaos in practice.The procedural principle of procuratorial supervision of false litigation is to restore the judicial power and complete the litigation structure of“confrontational adjudication”.The prosecutorial power of false litigation has both administrative and judicial attributes.Therefore,it is necessary and legitimate to divide false litigation into three types,i.e.,the false litigation dominated by public interests,the false litigation dominated by private interests,and the false litigation with the purpose of policy evasion,and apply differentiated procuratorial supervision modes.For the false litigation dominated by public interests,the procuratorate should strengthen judicial activism and focus on in-process supervision,and the court has the obligation to inform the procuratorate to appear in court;for the false litigation dominated by private interests,the procuratorate should strictly follow the principles of passivity and modesty and mainly supervise afterwards;for the false litigation with the purpose of policy evasion,the procuratorate should refrain from imprudent intervention.