民事证据收集制度之体系化

Reflection on the System of Evidence Collection in Civil Procedure Law

现行书证提出命令制度与律师调查令、法官调查取证、证据保全等制度叠床架屋的局面造成了体系性混乱。混乱的根源可从外部体系和内部体系两方面解释。在外部体系,书证提出命令及其变种律师调查令制度采大陆法系的“当事人收集/法官指挥”模式,法官调查取证制度及证据保全制度则采“当事人收集/法官收集”模式,二者都是整体性的证据收集制度解决方案,功能相同而互相排斥。就内部体系,两种模式背后的原则分别为“司法主导”和“司法替代”,这二者之间也很难通约。为实现证据收集制度的体系化,应采“司法主导原则”及“当事人收集/法官指挥”模式,具体路径包括扩张文书提出命令制度、充实证据保全制度和增设法官职权命令取证制度。

The current system for collecting evidence in civil law includes various methods such as document production orders,civil investigation orders,judicial investigations,judge evidence collection,and evidence preservation,which has led to confusion due to overlapping mechanisms.This confusion stems from two primary sources:legal technology and legal culture.The document production order and its variant,the civil investigation order,follow the“party collection/judge control”model typical of continental legal systems,while judicial investigation,judge evidence collection,and evidence preservation adopt the“party collection/judge collection”model.Both are holistic solutions to the evidence collection system,operating in a functionally similar but mutually exclusive manner.They are also underpinned by different legal cultures—the“judicial priority”model and the“judicial substitution”model—which do not share common features.Therefore,the“judicial substitution”model should be adopted along with the“party collection/judge control”model,and a reconstructed evidence collection system should include expanding document production orders,enhancing the evidence preservation system,