2010年12月12日 星期日

法典外的憲法

中文版序

前幾天用英文寫了這篇,但大概不多人對我的破爛英文有興趣。是的,我可以理解,所以我今天花了一些時間翻成中文,大家不用受苦了。話說我之前是想打算模仿牛津公法與政治學者Prof. Vernon Bogdanor的書寫風格。他在他的新作 The New British Constitution 裏以爐邊閒談的口吻與讀者侃侃而談英國憲法變遷的種種議題,彷若閒話家常的行文間卻是議論縱橫,大師風采令人神往。所以呀,我就不自量力的給他學一下。哈哈,話說中文版應該也保持了這份初衷啦!

本文

事實上,將憲法分為成文和不成文兩類有時會使人誤解。讀者或可輕易指出美國、德國、和法國是具備成文憲法的國家,而英國則是不成文憲法。然而,這很難說是完全正確的。

此緣因於【憲法】一詞本身的定義。本詞其實指的是所有關於國家機構組成與權力行使的基本法則,這些法則有法律,也有法律以外的規範。這樣看來,即使美國,在她出名的美國憲法法典之外,也有一些不成文的憲法法則,而即便是英國,也有一些憲法性質的法規,例如議會法,是可以被當作成文憲法來看待的,只是我們不會只用【憲法】兩個字來稱呼他們。

不過,當人們想要強調收納和記錄了所謂國家根本大法的那份文本,成文或不成文的分類方式還是有其重要性。這樣一份基本大法的法規清單常常被冠上【憲法】二字作為名稱。在英文裡,這類文本名稱的字首都會用大寫,讀者可以多施注意。這類憲法文本的有無,可以區分所謂的成文憲法制度以及不成文憲法制度。

接下來,我想恭請讀者想一想何以一個國家或一群人民會想要制定一部憲法呢?即使是我國(中華民國)的開國元老,也都將制憲視為民國肇造後的第一要務,雖然成文憲法這個構想是澈澈底底的西方進口,而在中國的久遠的政治與法制史裏也完全無先例可循。而即便今日的臺獨團體,也同樣熱切地鼓吹重新制定一部臺灣憲法來替換現行 "過時" 的中國民國憲法。何以這種制憲的構想會與這些人物如此相親相愛呢?尤其是那些渴想一個新氣象與嶄新開始的人們。

這邊我會制止自己回答這個問題,因為這個問題很有可能會需求一個冗長的敘述以及勞心傷神地對西方文明的史學、系譜學、以及哲學的探索及分析。我僅打算向讀者強調一個重要的事實:就是憲法的誕生總是跟隨著政治的動亂以及人民對一個嶄新開始的渴望。

引人注目的是,近代以來,不同文化下的人似乎都對成文憲法具有堅定的信仰。他們相信這樣一個法律文本可以神蹟般地成為國土上的最高權威 (the supreme law of the land),並產生對政府權力的約束。時常因為人民先是受苦於暴君的獨裁,而因此將這個暴虐的統治者推翻,並再創立一個新政權。但是,這個新政權的統治必須順服我們全體人民的意志,而能防止新政權濫用我們所賦予它的權力的方法就是去塑造一部新憲法。這個理念在美國非常成功地被實踐了。但是,這個理念是否充足完備,卻在其他地區的行憲經驗下顯得問題重重。

中華民國,又來了,就是一個例子可以說明這個制憲理念距離真正實踐憲政國家有多麼遙遠,離一個尊敬法治、公平自由的選舉、所有公民享有自由權以及平等保障的自由民主憲政秩序有多麼遙遠。當我國憲法第一份版本被確定公布後,這個國土上的最高權威即刻證明它在中國國土上確實是萬人之上,但卻是一人之下 --- 政府元首及三軍統帥 (呵,同一個人)比憲法更高一點。憲法文本被統治者凍結,而國家權力被國民政府壟斷而不受約束的行使。

誠然,當時這個多災多難的新生共和國面對來自共黨叛亂與日本軍國主義侵略的威脅,而這個非比尋常的戰爭動亂狀態或可正當化國民政府凍結憲法的集權行為。畢竟,為了保全國家的存續,小我必須被犧牲。確實,林肯總統在南北戰爭烽煙連天之時,也是基於同一個理由凍結了美國憲法中的人身保護令及法院提審權,以方便聯邦政府肅清來自南方邦聯的叛亂者。林肯也是表示,為了顧全大局不得不如此。

雖然我不敢說我是衡平國家安全與公民自由的專家,我不敢說這些凍結憲法的決定是否真的合理與必要,但我依然想要指出,許多我們這個時代卓然有成的思想家確實表達他們的懷疑。這邊只舉一個例子,是由知名的美國聯邦最高法院法官布倫南所說的一段暮鼓晨鐘之言:

當我們反省我們美國在戰時或自覺國家安全受到威脅時公民自由所受到的貧乏對待,我們就會對我們的憲政成就難以感到自傲,反而甚至感到難堪... 每當這些所謂的國安危機遠離之後,合眾國都會悔不當初地發現,當初那一切對公民自由的限縮完全是多餘的。但是,當新一輪危機出現時,我們仍將發現,從歷史中習得教訓而防免重蹈覆轍是如此的困難。


先暫且不論凍結憲法的必要性吧,我想點出的是成文憲法的脆弱以及不穩定。不只在吾國,許多其他新生的國家亦然,我們都可以看到國家權力如何輕易地被獨裁者隻手襲奪。而當初那些革命者、改革者、或制憲者對民主、憲政、及公民自由的美夢就這樣破滅了。從開國立憲以來,我們國家花了將近八十年才真正開始起步讓憲政步入正軌,在此同時,卻仍有無數的國家仍然對他們開國先烈以及全體國民的政治宣言視若無睹。

這些事例乃是要說明,單單成文憲法自身是不足以成為能成功實踐民主政治的充分條件的。良好運轉的民主政治所仰賴的基本法則不單包括法典上所撰書的規條,尚且包括了法典以外的法則。這些法則大多無法被憲法法典所記錄窮盡,但不能形諸於立法文字卻絕不代表他們比較不重要或不需像法條一樣被遵守。倘若我們粗心地忽略這些法典外的憲法的重要性,我們的政治必定會面對極大的危機。這些法典外的憲法,可能是憲政慣例、或是慣行、甚至僅是存在於政客內心的專業倫理、責任感、以及美德。

我知道最後一項聽起來很陳舊過時,但我委實相信他的重要性。如同我上面敘述所暗示的,單靠成文的制度無法隨時保障民主憲政秩序的良好運轉。當法律制度技窮之時,自由之福的唯一保障恐怕就端視受人民委託大權的政治家們如何行動了。不同的行為往往取決於政治家們對於那些奠基及環繞於憲法的崇高理念的信念。而正是這樣一個信念的有無,區隔了喬治華盛頓與朱力亞凱薩;區隔了合眾國的民主共和與羅馬的君主專制。

2010年12月10日 星期五

The Intangible Constitution

The classification of written and unwritten constitutions is in actual fact sometimes a misleading one. Readers could easily refer to the United States, Germany, and France as to countries having a written constitution, while Britain as a unwritten one. Never the less, this is hardly a truth.

This is because of the very definition of the term 'constitution'. This term should suggest all the rules, legal one and non-legal one, which govern the exercise of governmental power. In view of this, even the United States has some unwritten constitutional rules in addition to its emblematic Constitution of the United States of America,and, even Britain has some constitutional statues such as the Parliament Act which can be regarded as a written constitution, although without a capital 'C'.

Yet, this classification of written an unwritten constitution remains useful when people want to emphasise the collection and compilation of rules, largely legal ones, of the most fundamental significance in terms of the governmental power in a country. Such a canon of fundamental legal rules usually are entitled Constitution. Readers should notice it is distinguished with its capital C. The existence of this kind of constitutional document distinguishes between regimes with and without a written constitution.

Then, I would like to invite readers to think about why a country or a group of people wants to ordain and establish a Constitution? Even the forefathers of our country, the Republic of China, regarded the making of a Constitution as of the highest priority after the birth of the new Republic, even though the idea of a written constitution is utterly a Western import and unprecedented in the course of Chinese political and legal history. Even the today Taiwan Independence activists are keen to the making of a new Constitution of Taiwan to replace the current 'archaic [sic]' Constitution. Why is the idea of written constitution so dear to these people, particularly those who are desperate for a fresh start?

I will refrain myself from trying to answer this question, which is likely to demand a lengthy account of painstaking historical, genealogical and philosophical explorations and analyses of Western civilizations. Here, I merely want to point out a significant fact for the readers: that the birth of a Constitution always follows political unrests and people's yearning for a fresh start.

Strikingly, people of different cultures in modern times appear to have a strong faith in Constitution. They believe that this document can function miraculously as a supreme law of the land that attains the purpose of limiting the governmental power of their new regime. Because we the people had suffered bitterly the reign of the tyrants, we thus overthrew this unjust government and founded a new one. This new one shall merely exercise according to the will of us, and the means to prevent the abuse of the delegated power by this new regime is to craft a new Constitution. This ideal is successfully embodied by the American people. However, whether this ideal is self-sufficient is in actual fact rather questionable in light of the experiences of many other places.

Republic of China, again, is a example of how far the ideal of Constitution is from the real practice of a constitutional democracy honouring the limited government, the rule of law, the fair and general election, and the civil liberty and equal protection of all citizens. Immediately after the publication of our first version of Constitution, this supreme law was proved to be supreme in the land except our supreme head of government and arm forces. The text was frozen and the governmental power was exercised by the Nationalist government centrally and unlimitedly.

Certainly, the extraordinary wartime conditions faced by the nascent Republic might justify such suspension of our constitutional regime on the grounds that only a highly centralised reign could resist all the vicious threats, posed by both the communist riot and Japanese militarism. In order to sustain the survival of the whole, it was inevitable that the part of our political schemes should be sacrificed, only for a short while. True, Lincoln also suspended the habeas corpus of the US Constitution during the violent American Civil War, and he tried to justified his unconstitutional decision exactly by the foregoing cause: that I have to save the all.

Although I am not confident about myself as an expert of balancing national security and civil liberties so that I dare not to say that the suspension of our Constitution or the US one was unnecessary, I still want to point out that many of the eminent thinkers of our times do have expressed their doubt. Just to provide one example here, an informative account given by a renowned US Supreme Court Justice Brennen:

'There is considerably less to be proud about, and a good deal to be embarrassed about, when one reflects on the shabby treatment civil liberties have received in the United Stares during times of war and perceived threats to national security... After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realized that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis came along.'

Putting aside the necessity of freezing the Constitution, what I want to note is that how fragile and unstable a written constitution can be. Not just in our country, but also many other nascent countries can we see the governmental power was easily seized by the dictator. The initial dream of a real democracy, constitutionalism, and civil liberties of the benign revolutionists, reformers, or constitution drafters failed to come true. Our country had spent almost 80 years since the founding of this Republic by the time we commenced to enforce the rules in our Constitution, while many countries today still do not take seriously the political proclamation of their forefathers and We the People.

These facts just illustrate that a written constitution, in itself, is never a sufficient condition to a successful democracy. The fundamentals of a well functioning democracy comprise both legal and non-legal rules. The latter can hardly be exhausted by the Constitution, but these non-legal rules are by no means less essential than the legal rules recorded in the text. The crisis will be serious if we recklessly ignore how significant these non-legal rules are. These rules may be constitutional conventions, or customs, or just the ethics and virtues of politicians.

I know the last one sounds anachronistic, yet I truly believe in its significance. As I mentioned above, the tangible institutions can never in itself guarantee the well functioning of the constitutional democracy at all times. At times of the limitation of the legal machinery emerges, the only safeguard of the blessings of liberty depends on how the persons entrusted with powers by us will behave. The difference between the behaviours turns on politicians' conviction of all the ideals underlying and around the Constitution. This conviction distinguishes George Washington from Julia Caesar; the democracy of the United States from the monarchy of Roman Empire.

2010年6月13日 星期日

約翰福音的基督論(Christology)

且看這段經文,約翰福音5. 18:

所以猶太人越發想要殺他;因他不但犯了安息日,並且稱 神為他的父,將自己和 神當作平等。

這段經文其實大致上以勾勒出今日基督教正統教義對「 基督」的理解,亦即 祂是 上帝的獨生子,然而地位卻又跟 上帝同等。

不過坦白說,望文生義,父子怎麼會同等呢?父的位階就是比子高啊,就人類社會而言。然而,基督既是子,卻又與父同等;我們只能說,這就是信仰的「奧秘」。

回到經文,其實讀者可以發現,約翰福音的作者在行文上做了一個巧妙的操作 --- 「 ...稱 神為他的父,將自己和 神當作平等。」 若不加上最後一句,釋經者斷不能推論出子與父同等這個結論。問題是,二者本來明明不是同等的東西,作者硬說是同等就變成同等;這未免又是福音書作者武斷而牽強的附會。基督徒乃憑信心倚賴聖經的「啟示」基礎,因此才能接受這種說法;這是神學跟哲學的不同。

如果讀者以個別書卷為單位(而非全本聖經)來檢視,會發現馬太、馬可、及路加福音(所謂的Synoptic Gospels)並沒有像約翰福音如此明確地宣稱基督與天父同等的地位。基督教的神學家因此把約翰福音的主張作為對其他三卷福音書的補充;透過相互補充、調和,而得出體系性的教義。

相反地,若沒有調和差異的必要(例如研究宗教的非基督徒學者即是如此),則研究者的任務則變成一一找出個別書卷內容的差異甚至衝突的所在,並提出問題:何以個別書卷的內容有所差異?

簡單的答案是,個別福音書反映的是初代基督教個別宗派的不同信仰內容。須知,初代的基督教可說是「百家爭鳴」,不同宗派各別發展,並在教義上有所出入。而個別的福音書,則是各宗派個自保存、傳閱的典籍,內容反映的自然是各該宗派的信仰觀。據此,學者認為,約翰福音的作者來自一個立場很獨特鮮明的宗派,並主張基督與 上帝的平等關係。

在爾後教義統合與「 正典(canon)」編篡的運動中,顯然約翰福音所出的宗派位列「有力學說」(或所謂「初始正統」),因此約翰福音得以進入「正典」而成為我輩今日所讀的聖經的一大篇章,並作為正統基督論的一大聖經基礎。

不過,基督論在不同的基督教支派之間仍然有所歧異,尤其是許多君士坦丁時期與羅馬帝國教會分離的東方宗派,所信奉的基督論在一些細節問題上與現在大家比較熟知的「西方教會(FN 1)」mould有所出入。而對基督身分的定性這個基督論大哉問的莫衷一是,也是最早造成東西教會分裂的導火線。(希臘正教和羅馬公教的分裂則是更之後的事了)

這個爭議與其所導致的分裂,使許多基督徒(至少臺灣的)會對於東方宗派極度的陌生。因為分裂太早,而新教徒的信仰內涵又主要來自於分裂後的羅馬帝國教會(西方教會)。東方宗派,可說真的是「失散多年」的弟兄,跟陌生人其實沒兩樣。

基督論是基督教神學的大哉問。我透過本文想強調的是以下幾點:1) Christology 在縱向上(歷史上)以及橫向上(不同宗派間)皆是諸多異見激烈廝殺的戰場;2) 即便聖經本身的諸多章節也欠缺明確的解答;3)當今的「正統」基督論的立論基礎是非有約翰福音而不可;4) 約翰福音的主張跟其他福音中比起來其實顯得特立獨行。


FN 1 包括天主教、東正教、以及新教這些以當初羅馬帝國教會教義為基礎而開展的諸宗派

2010年5月26日 星期三

[轉載] 針對學者黃東熊《法官「有罪推定」不當 應速改進》(25 May 2010,中時電子報)一文的回應

我先廢話幾句:廖老師的版真是「地靈人傑」、「人文薈萃」;常可以看到很多精采而知性的留言,跟許多國內報紙文章的水準不分軒輊,甚至猶有過之,看了還真可以長見識!

這篇留言的原址請參見:http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/bruce.y.liao?v=wall&story_fbid=425755073652

---- 以下是正文 ----

假如承審的法官「事實上」就是會有「有罪推定」的心證(如同黃教授所指謫的我國法官那般)【fn 1】,那麼再討論「一審判了有罪是否就能推翻『無罪』的這個推定」,其實也沒多大意義,因為法官(不管一二審)早就推定被告「有罪」了,再怎麼告訴法官要「無罪推定呦」,老實講也沒用阿。

所以我看其實黃教授也不是真的要批評那個法官的昏頭文章【fn 2】,實際上只是把那篇文章作個引子,要批的是(他所認為的)我國法官普遍「有罪推定」的心態。真要講起來,英美法陪審系統中的法官,當然啦,普遍深知人權重要性及司法權作為保障人民對抗國家機器的功能,因此的確會比我國法官來得更落實「無罪推定」原則,這點倒是沒什麼疑問的。但美帝法官心態上會「有罪推定」或是小白常說的pro-prosecution親檢方的,其實也不在少數。許多法官在當法官前根本就是D.A.,忌惡如仇,被告或辯護律師開了一句話,他就知道被告要搞什麼把戲、耍什麼花樣,所以在證據容許性問題或證人詰問過程中,甚至在jury instruction中,每每傾向容許檢察官的主張或耍小花樣,硬是希望陪審團判被告有罪,這說實在也不少見。我閱讀過幾本美帝教授指導訴訟詰辯學、訴訟策略的書籍,第一課千篇一律,都是提醒檢察官及辯護律師必須「徹底瞭解研究你的法官」,理由即在於此。

就我國的情形而言,現實的問題是,在「非人民陪審」、「由法官身負有無罪認定之重任及撰擬詳盡理由裁判書類」、「卷證併送」、及「二審全面事實法律覆審制」這些制度下,我們要怎麼期待一個法官在審判過程中毫無預斷、不會「有罪推定」?老實講,在開庭之前,每個法官為了確保訴訟的有效進行(不要浪費時間),為了能寫出不會被上級法院撤銷的判決書(不要寫到一半才發現:慘,有關鍵證據還沒調查、有關鍵問題還沒問清楚),因此都碼先把檢察官所提對被告不利的卷證翻得滾瓜爛熟,連關鍵證物在哪、明星證人是誰、及要問什麼問題才要切中要點,早就了然於胸。這些都是訴訟過程中很實際的問題,是訴訟實務家在這樣的制度下必須每天面對的,決不是幾句:「ㄟ,法官應該無罪推定阿,應該要作一個客觀中立的聽訟者就好阿,怎麼還自己問證人問那麼多問題,怎麼還自己調查那麼多證據阿,有偏頗有偏頗喔」的幾句批評就可以解決的。我以為黃教授僅批評我國法官普遍有罪推定的心態、卻沒提及任何因制度使然的背景問題,這僅不過是覆述了一遍現今我國輿論普遍的想法,不能算是很有深度的指謫。

要怎麼教育法官呢?好吧,就算法官普遍都能深植著「司法身為監督檢察官起訴及證據取得的角色」,就算法官都能普遍接受認同「證據排除就是要嚇阻檢警不法侵害人民權利」的這種觀念,但在訴訟實際過程中,法官為了清楚地認定事實及有無罪,為了統合正反方各種證據且撰擬理由詳盡的判決書,為了不讓上級審有縫可插隨便把你撤銷,自然而然會依職權調查證據,自然而然也會把證人的補充詰問當成常態,更不用說在聽審前詳細閱讀卷證而產生對被告不利心證的預斷(其實說起來對檢察官不利心證的也很多啦),這些所謂「有罪預斷」的特徵,我認為都是制度使然的現實問題。黃教授師法扶桑國的平野龍一大教授、而倭國制度與我國似乎也相去不遠(大差異就是日本係「起訴狀一本」),我也曾經問過一位來自日本的法官同學:日本法官是否因「起訴狀一本」就真的不會有罪預斷?他只給我一句回答:日本檢察官起訴的定罪率是百分之九十九。啊,不言可喻啊。

最後,黃教授文中所提「但實務上,卻由被告自己證明;同時,我國被告證明自己無罪,則必須證明到關於被告無罪,『不容有合理性之懷疑存在之餘地』才行,否則,被告必被判有罪。」等語,很明顯是來自於一則早於N年前就被廢止的最高法院的判例。我記得早在十年多前(可能更早),最高法院的判例及刑庭決議早就屢次三令五申,假如檢察官沒有證據證明被告有罪至「超越合理懷疑」的程度,即應諭知被告無罪。而且二審法院每年因為認為一審認定被告有罪的證據不足而撤銷改判無罪者,真是不計其數,因而連帶影響近年來一審法院認定有罪事證越趨嚴謹。黃教授這部分的指謫假如不是道聽塗說或僅憑臆測,實在不知基礎何在。

---- 結束 ----

fn 1 學者黃東熊的原文請參見: http://news.chinatimes.com/forum/0,5252,11051401x112010052500431,00.html

fn 2 張升星,《無罪推定 被告擋箭牌?》(23 May 2010,聯合報),原文請見:http://udn.com/NEWS/OPINION/X1/5617614.shtml

2010年5月24日 星期一

專業主義的滲透 --- 聖工的分殊化

現代社會的特徵就是專業化、分殊化(differentiation);各個領域都有專家、都有一套自己的行為模式。傳統意義底下的 "專業",像是醫師、律師、工程師等等,不斷地被擴充,以至於包括運動、養小孩、人際關係等等,也都會有"專家"來提供專業的建議,告訴你我什麼事情用什麼樣的方式來做會比較有效、比較理想。

這種專業掛帥的氣氛,似乎在教會裡頭也愈來愈濃厚了。聖工,也就是教會的事工,也正在經歷這種專業的革命;也就是,教會內的各項工作,例如講道、聖樂、行政、牧養等等,也都可以透過更專業的方式來進行,以達到更佳的果效(更高的效率)。教牧諮商,我認為就是這個分殊化的最佳例證。

教牧諮商,簡單來說,是一種將傳統的信仰訓練與現代心理學理論和方法結合,以解決信徒心理和靈性問題的牧養技巧;透過專業的諮商方法以及其他傳統的信仰輔助方式如禱告、讀經等,來幫助信徒改善生活和信仰。從這邊來看,可以發覺心理諮商的專業在當中所扮演的關鍵角色。這就是一種專業的滲透;教牧諮商的蓬勃發展,與當代心理學的崛起有密切不可分的關係。

諸位千萬不要對這種變化、或"專業主義滲透"等字眼感到不自在。其實聖工一直以來都有很強的專業主義色彩的,不知各位有無查覺?聖經的詮解和神學的研究,一直以來都是非常專業的學問。神學、法學、醫學是中世紀三大古典學術;很久以來,神學就像今日的醫學法學等顯學,是只有最出色卓越的青年才俊才能夠學習的。另外,聖樂不也是一樣高度專業?巴赫難道是泛泛之輩嗎?故而,一旦能了解其實聖工向來就很濃厚的專業和精英傳統,則面對今天教會的事工再進一步的專業化,也不會再感到是什麼空前而令人不適的創舉。

只是我們要意會到的是,專業主義的擴大,就會讓各種事務的分工愈來愈無可避免。教牧諮商的發展,也意謂著"牧養方法"更加的專業,而進行這項工作的人也愈來愈不能隨興、隨便了。例如,在諮商的專業要求下,就會告訴你哪些關懷他人的方式是有效的,而哪些有是沒用或甚至是有負面效果的。就像聖經的詮釋也會有妥當和歪曲之分是一樣的。

只不過,當聖經的詮釋在今日愈來愈鬆懈和隨意,教牧諮商對牧養方式的宰制卻不斷增強;專業主義在兩邊的一消一長,令人玩味。此外,教牧諮商或許真能帶來不同凡響的效果,但也讓有心服事的信徒面對更高的進入門檻;教會在訓練上勢必也須投入更多的資源,愈來愈多相關的課程和訓練都在教會或團契中出現;這些都是專業主義的滲透,教會聖工分殊化所帶來的種種改變。

2010年5月20日 星期四

英文作文 --- 宜芬在老人安養院實習的心得

We all notice the time our children cuts his first teeth, but forget the time our fathers lose his last teeth. To satisfy our needs for more time to enjoy new experiences, science and technology progress have been prolonging human life span in these centuries, enabling us to live longer and healthier than our ancestor did.

However, becoming old seems too horrible to face for young people like us, since the elder look very different from us, such as their loose skin, tardy movement, bad memory, and untidiness. Moreover, the outside world is in fact largely designed for the young people, so old people tend to be more unsuitable to the living in such environment. People thus often think that the elder would be so fragile that they should stay at home to avoid potential risk. When becoming that old, who will care about my happiness?

To cope with these problems, a well-equipped nursing home or senior home is the ideal place to the elder, for not only their safety but the same age peers for them. Zhao-Ru Senior Home is one of such institution. Located at a community that stands on a hill behind Chengchi University, a place away from the city center which is serene and tranquil, Zhao-Ru is a home for many elder people who suffer Dementia, usually known as Alzheimer's disease.

On a chilly day I first visited and stood outside Zhao-Ru. Although I very much want to become a social worker, I still felt a little uncomfortable about getting along with the elder. I was afraid that I may not understand them when they are talking to me or I may do something silly to annoy them. I kept smiling to cover my anxiety when walking in; I knew my face looked unnatural. Yet, I comforted myself that the old are not aliens, they are just like children, thirsting for patience and love.

My first job was taking pictures for every resident. I took an elevator to the third floor. As the door opened, I breathed deeply and stepped out with smile, seeing the elder sitting at their chairs side by side with the only voice from a television. Many of them soon noticed and stared at me with smile. Grasping and skimming a name list, I found the first person, a grandmother, who sat and napped beside a heating machine with her hands crossed. I tenderly tapped her on the shoulder, waked her up, and asked if I could take a picture of her. She said she was too old and ugly to be taken pictures of. This response made me quite uncertain about what to do at first, and then I squatted down, held her hands, and praised her beauty. I found her hands were flimsy, smooth and cold. Fortunately, she grinned her appreciation of my help, and then she asked me to comb her hair and button her buttons. Finally I managed to take her picture.

I took their pictures one by one. Most of them were willing to be my models. They chatted with me while being photographed. Although I could not totally understand what they meant and often just nod my head in response, they looked very happy to have a person listening to them. At that time, it seemed quite easy for me to get along with the elder. They were all affable and pleasant old people. I walked confidently toward my next target, a grandfather in a fluffy green coat.

“Could I take a picture of you?”
“No.”
“Please, let me take a picture.”
“No.”
“But everyone has his own photo.”

I tried in a different way to invite him but it did not work. His eyes stared at the camera with his hands waving.

I made my whole effort but could not persuade him to be photographed. “Other grandpas and grandmas did it the same. Why doesn’t he do so as well?” I murmured. After a short period of mum, a nurse passed by, seeing what just happened, and told me: “He was a diplomat. He is used to protecting his privacy from being offended. If he doesn’t want to do that, don’t push him. ”

I was astonished while knowing his career, not because he was once a diplomat but because he worked as young people do. Yet soon I found it quite weird of me to be startled by learning about the fact that an old person could work normally and respectably in the past. Naturally, everyone works. Nonetheless, when facing these Alzheimer patients, I saw them anything but wise, intelligent or educated. To be blunt, my primary impression about them all concerned the negative side they show, such as weakness and poorness.

Suddenly I realized that we usually fail to show the due respect toward our senior friends in the society. People coming to the last stage of lives are often crudely regarded and classified as a single category named “the old” by the young only because of their similar appearance. They might be either sick or weak; they might sometimes lack full sanity, but they are still distinct individuals, whose uniqueness differentiates them from each other. Therefore, I think I should treat them like my friends.

After altering my view on the elder, I discovered that Grandpa Lian likes patting me on my back to express his friendliness; that Grandpa Chou can speak English frequently for being an interpreter all his life; that Grandpa Yu studied at Chengchi University while it was located at mainland China; that Grandma Kou always asked my name when seeing me, and that Grandma Xia always sings the song, Ode to the Republic of China, at the KALAOKE time every Friday. I also felt genial and warm from Grandma Ho’s hands, even though they were flimsy, smooth and cold. In addition, I found a secret that Grandpa Lo, who was a diplomat and dislikes being taken photograph, likes stealthily taking candy because he has diabetes.

With these experiences, I have known them better. They are neither aliens nor children; instead, they are my friends. Even though they lose their last teeth, they are still friends of mine.

2010年4月29日 星期四

「余必遵守憲法」

廢死爭議現已降溫,在前陣子不同意見仍激烈搏鬥之時,「殺人是否償命」與「死刑有否恫嚇效果」等鋒頭話題是論辯的焦點。然而有另外一個議題常在「主戰場」的辯論中被附帶提及,但論述始終似是而非,就是法務部未「依法行政」的爭議。我企圖簡單分析「依法行政」的內涵,以及行政部門積極落實憲法的義務。

首先,依法行政這個憲法和行政法的概念不難望文生義;然而,在法學的討論中,其真正的內涵卻不僅限於「政府機關應按照現行法律規定行事」。有鑑於國會立法往往非十全十美,一旦立法違反憲法並侵害民權時,執行部門就該基於善意及謹慎判斷,以合乎憲法旨趣的「規範」來取代原先的法律條文。換句話說,依法行政旨在防禦政府違法濫用公權力侵害人民權益;它是一個維護民權的制度。因此,如果情況是政府為了保護人民而「違法」,則實在無須再指控政府沒有依法行政了。

接著有二個問題浮現:第一,若行政機關可自行認定法律違憲而不適用,則法律不就失其約束力?第二,憲法解釋乃司法院大法官的職權,行政機關何竟能自行其是?

關於第一個問題,我們必須釐清行政機關認定法律違憲的情況是非常例外的。以廢死事件來說,此議題早已高度爭議。因此有論者從行政首長在這類特例中能拒絕執行法律,進而率斷地申論未來行政部門對法律「可以隨便不要遵守」、「法律將失去安定性」等等結論,未免以例外凌駕原則而放大所謂法治危機。

接著第二點,我們其實是面對一個憲法迷思,亦即大法官(或司法權)壟斷釋憲權。然而,真正的憲政理念是所有的公權力分支(行政、立法、司法)都有貫徹、落實憲法的任務。依照憲法的設計,司法院大法官是有「最終」確定憲法詮釋的權威,但非「唯一」能解釋憲法的機關。因此,行政機關的詮釋最終必須服膺於大法官的權威,而前者的見解也有可能被推翻。但這種情形時實有別於所謂行政機關「不能」解釋憲法的迷思。

如此憲政設計有其至理:行政部門若能貫徹捍衛憲法的任務,將比由司法消極地受理違憲爭議再進行審理有效率很多。這個理念可追溯到第一部成文憲法,即美國憲法,的誕生之時。耶魯法學院的Amar教授指出,美國制憲者最初是以總統(行政)為憲法的主要捍衛者,期待總統能憑藉其本身的智識或者其行政團隊,對國會所通過的法律進行合憲性的檢視。而今天聯邦最高法院在釋憲上舉足輕重,反而是後來的演變,並非制憲者起初的構想。即使如此,Amar教授提醒,在今日由行政資源強大的總統主動挑戰國會立法,比起其未置一詞、「依法行政」而讓權利受侵害且資源有限的人民赴法院提起訴訟,絕對更有效率。

因是,誤解「依法行政」理念,無疑將自動棄守憲政中維護民權最有效的一道防線;憲法的總統誓詞之「余必遵守憲法」才應是行政機關真正的行為準則。我們應當認知,實現民權真正有效的方式,並非偶爾那幾件媒體聚焦的重大人權訴訟,而是在平凡生活中行政機關能夠時刻注意其行政對憲法(或相關人權法規)的落實。相關制度的建立包括政府律師的訓練和配制等,自然不可或缺。