法院限制公民通信秘密权的合法性补强策略研究

A Study of Strategies for Complementing the Legitimacy of Court Access to Citizens’Communication Privacy

《中华人民共和国宪法》第四十条对公民通信秘密权所作的高强度保护,导致了无论是学理上的解释还是实践中的应用,法院要求电信企业配合调取公民通信秘密之举的合宪性与否一直存在争议。尽管多数学者从法教义学的角度对条款内容进行拆分和论证从而为法院进行辩护,并形成了占居主流的“合宪说”,但法院与电信企业之间的冲突实则为基本权利限制理论领域的问题。法院限制公民通信秘密权不仅是对《中华人民共和国宪法》第四十条立宪本意的贯彻,在限制的过程中也遵循了法律保留原则及内外界限原则,其行为并不违宪。同时,为了更好地维护公民通信秘密权,消解法院调取行为导致的《中华人民共和国宪法》第四十条虚置风险,应当通过概括式和区别式进行立法,借由宪法解释界定通信秘密权的保护范围,以及在实践中遵循法益平衡原则来为法院限制公民通信秘密权作合法性补强。

The high level of protection of the right to privacy of citizens’communications in Article 40 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China has led to a dilemma in both doctrinal interpretation and practical application of the constitutionality of the court’s request for the cooperation of telecommunications companies in accessing citizens’communications information.Although most scholars have defended the court by dissecting and arguing the content of the provision from a legal doctrinal perspective,and have formed the mainstream“constitutionality theory”,the conflict between the court and the telecommunication enterprise is actually a problem in the field of fundamental rights restriction theory.The court’s restriction of citizens’right to privacy of communication is not only the implementation of the constitutional intent of Article 40 of the Constitution,in the process of restriction also follows the principle of legal reservation and the principle of internal and external boundaries,its behavior is not unconstitutional.At the same time,in order to better protect citizens’right to communication privacy and eliminate the risk of Article 40 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China being rendered ineffective due to the court’s retrieval actions,legislation should be carried out through both general and differentiated approaches,define the scope of protection of the right to communication privacy through constitutional interpretation,and follow the principle of balancing legal interests in practice to strengthen the legitimacy of the court’s restriction on citizens’right to communication privacy.