宪法司法化的悖论——兼论法学家在推动宪政中的困境

Paradoxes in Discourse of Constitutional Adjudication

本文对围绕齐玉苓案形成的宪法司法化讨论进行分析 ,展现了法律人就“宪法司法化”问题所形成的两个话语悖论 :其一 ,宪法司法化究竟是将宪法作为法律渊源的司法判断过程 ,还是对成文法进行违宪审查的过程 ;其二 ,“认真对待宪法”究竟是对待抽象的宪法理念还是具体的宪法文本。由于多数论者采用了法律政策学的话语策略 ,宪法司法化的讨论中真正的宪法缺场了。这些悖论暴露出法学家在推进宪政时所面临的困境 :一方面 ,变法心态和文人政治与宪政本身要求的宪政神圣权威之间存在着冲突 ,另一方面 ,宪法的司法化与宪法的政治化存在着紧张。为了克服上述悖论与困境 ,应采用法律解释学的方法来取代法律政策学的方法。因为法律解释学不仅展现了法律的智慧 ,而且由于它坚持遵从权威、审慎节制而成为宪政改革应当遵循的政治美德。

Based upon a discursive analysis of debates on constitutional adjudication triggered by Qi Yuling case, the article shows the internal paradoxes in the discourse of constitutional adjudication. First of all, what is the real meaning of “constitutional adjudication?” Is it a process of judgement of law in which the constitution serves to fill gaps in the law, or a process of constitutional review by the court? What, then, is the real meaning of “taking constitutional law seriously?” Is it “taking constitutional ideas seriously” or “taking the constitution seriously?” Even though the jurists and judges engaged in the debates wished to apply the constitution to cases as statute law, they indeed took the constitution as abstract ideas rather than as statute law, since they used the approach of theoretic argument rather than constitutional interpretation. If we take the debate as a step of constitutionalism in China, we can find that public intellectuals in public sphere have to meet the dilemma between constitutional authority and constitutional reforms, and between political stabilization and legal development. Finally, the author argues that professional jurists should take approach of constitutional interpretation as a legal art as well as a political virtue of prudence to overcome these paradoxes and dilemma.