刑事审查起诉程序正当性完善研究

发布时间：2018-06-15 00:17

本文选题：审查起诉程序 + 检察机关　；参考：《华东政法大学》2013年博士论文

【摘要】：走向民主化、法治化的中国，“权力制约”因子日趋活跃。“将权力关进制度的笼子”，形成不敢腐的惩戒机制、不能腐的防范机制、不易腐的保障机制已成为执政党的重要目标，其也必将成为上至国家政治生活、下至司法领域具体案件办理中关注的重要内容。中国的检察机关拥有法律监督权，其中不仅包括侦查权、公诉权，还有对侦查机关、审判机关的诉讼监督权等，从而检察机关也被个别学者称为“法官之上的法官”，1其拥有的权力也可能成为“权力之上的权力”，因此受到了较为广泛的关注。公诉权是世界各国检察机关共同拥有的权力，由此也给各个法域的互相学习、比较和借鉴提供了便利。作为法治建设后来者的中国，公诉权因其主体定位的独特、与其他司法区域规定的差异，也引起了对公诉权制约模式的极大争论。公诉权制约的必要性已成为当前社会、学界、实务界的共识，最高人民检察院也通过其在司法领域的权力发布了一些措施，如强化版的“三级审批制”、人民监督员制度、不起诉听证制度等，而学界则较多从“普遍真理”入手，强调法官对公诉权的制约。非常遗憾的是，无论是一般学者、专家的建议，还是最高人民检察院颁布的被切实适用的各司法解释，2012年修改的《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》都未见吸收；鉴于这部法律在公诉权规范中的重要作用，笔者认为，目前为止的各种探索、建议可能都因先天不足或后天失调，还无法真正引起立法者的重视；为此，探索之路仍漫漫，“同志仍须努力”。作为刑事诉讼中的三大权力之一，公诉权虽没有如同审判权般受到重视，但其可以延伸到侦查程序、贯穿于审判程序，并成为两者链接的桥梁；作为其主体的检察机关，被宪法钦定为“法律监督机关”，可见其作用和地位的不同一般。但公诉权作为权力的一种，其可能造成的滥用和对权利的威胁是与生俱来的，对公诉权制约的探讨在理论上是必不可少的，在现实中也是绵绵不绝。从中国审查起诉程序的制度文本看，审查起诉的过程存在程序封闭，当事人参与不足，以及检察官审查的行政化、书面化和决定的不独立等问题，审查起诉的救济则存在检察机关自我主导、自我评判的问题，从而导致整个审前公诉权的正当化程度不够。从中国审查起诉程序的实践样本看，审查起诉程序的独立地位没有得到一致的认可，当事人的权利被有意或无意地忽视，检察官办案的法定独立性受到不当影响，审查起诉存在着不当的中间处理，审查起诉后的救济效果不理想等，如此，审查起诉程序还有很大的完善空间。从世界各主要法域的制度情况看，以公诉权制约为基本目标，公诉权正当化的途径呈现多样性，包括公诉权行使前的准备、公诉权行使的程序和对公诉决定的救济等，前两者主要涉及审查起诉程序，1最后一者是审查起诉的救济程序，而他们更为关注的就是后者。相比于域外的公诉权正当化形式，中国的审查起诉救济无法照搬域外，而审查起诉程序本身的独立性则为通过程序正当化公诉权提供了可能。从现有的一些实践改革和学者的各种建议分析看，已得以推进的改革不少都是“动机不纯”、效果难料；各种建议很少得到实务界的回应，不少也存在违宪、违法，甚至涉及到政治体制上的重大变革，实施困难较大。不仅如此，这些改革虽不能说完全无理，但是否一定必须如此实施，从而在司法领域大动干戈，论证不多，最后大多也只能限于“讨论”层次，没有上升到实践层次，更别提制度层次。中国审查起诉中的公诉权由检察机关行使，其有一个独立的程序作为支撑的平台，即审查起诉程序，这是许多司法区域中没有的。考虑到这一特点，笔者认为，通过对审查起诉程序进行必要的设计与改革，使该程序具备司法化的运作特点，从而成为审前程序正当化公诉权的主要途径。如此，既遵守当前的宪法规范、检察机关定位，也在理论和实践上具有相当的合理性、可行性。本文共有六个部分，除导言外，各章节内容大体如下：第一章为刑事审查起诉程序的基本问题。本章主要对审查起诉程序中涉及的一些基本问题予以界定，从而奠定程序正当化的基础。本章分为四节，第一节指出，审查起诉程序是在有关利害关系人参与下，对侦查过程及结论进行审查，并确定是否起诉的一个专门程序，其在主体、对象、内容、方式和结果上具有自身的特点。审查起诉与起诉审查虽都是正当化公诉权的一种形式，两者也有密切的关系，但在所处的阶段、对公诉权制约的特点、目的、主体和对象等方面都存在差异。第二节指出，中国当前在立法上、理论上都未将审查起诉程序作为一个独立程序，与该程序本身的地位并不相称；审查起诉程序不仅有独立的任务，主导的公诉权也呈现裁断职能，且当前的程序也为这一权力运作提供了空间，应当可以作为一个独立的程序阶段。第三节指出，检察机关的公诉权包括审查起诉、公诉决定和出席法庭等权力，相对于在法庭审判中的公诉权具有三方格局，其正当化得到相当的保障，在审查起诉中的审查与决定的权力缺少恰当的监督；审查起诉程序的正当性完善不仅是因公诉权滥用的可能，也是权力监督、司法公正、人权保障和司法实践等多方面的需要。第四节指出，审查起诉程序作为刑事程序的一个环节，是以诉讼认识论作为科学性基础，风险管理论作为合理性基础，诉讼目的论作为效用性基础，而程序正义论则是整个程序的基本保障。第二章为刑事审查起诉程序的规范文本与实践样本。本章主要是对中国审查起诉程序的制度性情况与具体实践样态进行分析与调查，以点题。本章共分为三节，第一节主要是对审查起诉程序的规范文本进行详细介绍与分析，提出在审查对象、审查方式、当事人参与以及审查处理等四个方面的正当性缺陷。第二节主要是对审查起诉程序的实践样本进行考察。笔者通过对全国各地20个左右的基层与地市级检察机关公诉人员的问卷调查与座谈，展现当前实务人员对审查起诉程序的基本认识、当事人权利保障、影响办案人员的因素、审查起诉中的中间处理、对审查起诉决定的救济等方面的基本情况，并提出了一些改革的粗略建议，以了解实务人士的回应。第三节是对审查起诉程序的正当性不足进行全面总结。一方面，审查起诉程序对公诉权实现了一定程度的正当化，如强调对案件事实的发现、检察机关的主导与能动和检察机关的自我约束等，但其却存在检察机关一家独大，侦查机关、犯罪嫌疑人与被害人参与不足，权力限制与权利保障的程序逻辑不显，以及程序的不透明等问题，另一方面，笔者也尝试性的探讨了造成审查起诉程序正当性不足的原因，如对检察机关定位认识的混乱、对审判中心主义的误读、人治理念的作祟、权利保护意识与权力服务意识的冲突等。第三章为刑事审查起诉程序的域外考察。本章主要是对两大法系及法系融合的主要国家、地区审查起诉的制度与部分实践情况进行详细展示，以探讨域外审查起诉程序中具有共性意义的经验与规律，从而为中国审查起诉程序的完善提供借鉴之用。本章共分为三节，第一节以两大法系主要国家法国、德国、美国和英国的审查起诉立法与部分实践情况为主要内容，第二节则以当前法系融合较有特点的日本、中国台湾地区、俄罗斯的立法与部分实践情况为主要内容，同时，考虑国际刑事法院的独特性，文中也作了单独的介绍；第三节则是对三类审查起诉情况的大总结，既提出了各个法系的分经验，也对所列各法域的总体特点予以分析，，并结合中国审查起诉的特点，提出完善中国审查起诉程序作为公诉权正当化的必由之路。第四章为刑事审查起诉程序完善的宏观思考。本章主要是对在完善审查起诉程序中的一些基本问题予以商讨。全文共分为三节，第一节指出，审查起诉程序的正当化包括了实体正义与程序正义两方面的要求，而实体正义方面要求程序正当化必须具有合目的性、进步性和有效率，程序正义方面则要求正当化必须在裁断者的公正性、当事人的参与性和程序的理性方面有所体现。第二节则是讨论检察机关在正当化的审查起诉程序中的应有地位。在对各主要司法区域中检察机关定位分析的基础上，提出检察机关在立法上从来都不是纯粹的司法机关，在职权上具有较强的行政性，客观公正义务是其普遍的义务，但检察机关从来也没有如同法官般的独立性；至于中国检察机关的定位，立法上是法律监督机关，学理上的见解是五花八门，实践中也呈现多面性，而笔者最后也认为检察机关性质上是法律监督机关，在行使权力的方式上存在行政式或司法式的多种选择；在审查起诉程序中，检察机关依然是法律监督者，可以充当裁断者，但并非一成不变。第三节指出，当前中国审查起诉程序的功能主要体现在对侦查、对案件处理及程序自治方面，但在实践中出现了变异，过多强调对侦查的强化、对审判的输入和证据的补充，不利于司法效率和公正；为此，笔者建议将审查起诉程序的功能重定为监督侦查、制衡审判和正当化公诉权。第五章是完善刑事审查起诉程序的具体构建。本章共分为三节，第一节指出当前在完善审查起诉程序上的多种探索，包括法官审查模式、社会监督模式和检察机关的内部监督模式，但都存在一定的不足而无法堪当正当化公诉权的大任。第二节则是对公诉权正当化的惟一合理之程序——审查起诉程序的完善提出具体的完善建议，在分析程序主导者、程序的参与者、程序适用的对象、审查的形式、律师介入、证明标准等八个程序要素基础上提出了审查起诉程序的普通型、特殊型的不同构建。第三节则是解决审查起诉程序完善过程中可能遇到的质疑与配套问题。构想中的审查起诉程序可能遇到效率与公正的冲突、自侦案件的正当性难题、侦查机关的角色变化、以及审查起诉的阶段划分对检察机关的冲击，但这些本身都不会形成真正的问题；同时，作为构想中的审查起诉程序的一部分，检察中立、公检法关系方面应当予以适当微调。
[Abstract]:Towards democratization and the rule of law in China, the "power restriction" factor is becoming more and more active. "Putting power into the cage", forming a punishing mechanism that does not dare to rot, the mechanism of preventing corruption, and the incorruptible guarantee mechanism have become an important goal of the ruling party. It will also become a specific case in the political life of the country and to the judicial field. The procuratorial organ of China has the right of legal supervision, which includes not only the right of investigation, the right of public prosecution, but also the supervisory authority of the investigative organs and the judicial organs, and the procuratorial organs are also called "judges above the judge" by some scholars, and the 1 of their power may also become "power above the power". Therefore, the right of public prosecution is the common power of the procuratorial organs of all countries in the world, which also provides convenience to each other's jurisdictions to learn from each other, to compare and draw lessons from each other. As a successor of the rule of law, the right of public prosecution is unique to its main body and the difference between his judicial region and the public prosecution. There is a great debate on the mode of the right restriction. The necessity of the restriction of public prosecution has become the consensus of the current society, the academic circles and the practical circles. The Supreme People's Procuratorate has also issued some measures through its power in the judicial field, such as the "three level examination and approval system", the people's supervisor system, the non prosecution hearing system and so on. The truth "emphasizes the judge's restriction on the right to public prosecution. It is regrettable that neither the general scholars, the experts' suggestions or the judicial interpretations that the Supreme People's Procuratorate promulgated, the" People's Republic of China criminal procedure law ", which was amended in 2012, has not been absorbed; in view of the importance of this Law in the right to public prosecution The author believes that all kinds of exploration so far can not be taken seriously by the legislator because of the deficiency of the sky or the disorder of the day after day. For this reason, the path of exploration is still long, and "comrades still have to work hard".
As one of the three powers in the criminal procedure, the right of public prosecution is not regarded as the right of trial, but it can extend to the procedure of investigation, run through the trial procedure and become a bridge between the two. The procuratorial organ, as its main body, has been designated as the "legal supervision organ" by the constitution, but it can be seen in its different roles and status. The right of public prosecution, as a kind of power, is inborn with the possible abuse and threat to rights. The discussion of the restriction of the right of public prosecution is indispensable in theory, and is also continuous in reality.
From the system text of China's examination and prosecution procedure, the process of examination and prosecution has a closed procedure, insufficient participation of the parties, the administration of the prosecutor, the inindependence of written and determined decisions, and the remedies of the examination and prosecution have the self dominance of the procuratorial organ and the question of self judgment, which leads to the right of the whole pretrial public prosecution. When it is not enough, the independent status of the prosecution procedure has not been agreed upon by the practice samples of China's prosecution procedure, and the rights of the parties are neglected intentionally or unintentionally. The legal independence of the prosecutor's handling cases has been improperly affected. The examination and prosecution have undue intermediate treatment and the effect of the remedies after the prosecution. It is not ideal and so on, so there is still a lot of space for the procedure of examination and prosecution. From the system situation of the main legal fields in the world, the basic objective is the restriction of the right of public prosecution, and the ways of the justification of the right of public prosecution are varied, including the preparation before the exercise of the right of public prosecution, the process of exercising the right of public prosecution, and the relief to the decision of the public prosecution. The former two are mainly involved in the trial. The last one is the procedure of examining and prosecuting, and the last one is the remedies to examine and prosecute, and they are more concerned with the latter. Compared to the extraterritorial form of the right to prosecute, China's review and prosecution relief cannot copy the extraterritorial, and the independence of the prosecution procedure itself is possible through Cheng Xuzheng's right to turn public prosecution through Cheng Xuzheng. The reform and the various suggestions of the scholars have shown that many of the reforms that have been promoted are "impure of motivation", and the results are difficult to be expected; various suggestions are rarely responded to by the practical circles, and many are also unconstitutional, illegal, and even involve major changes in the political system, which are difficult to implement. But whether it must be carried out must be carried out so that there is not much argument in the field of justice, and most of which can only be limited to the level of "discussion", not up to the level of practice, not to mention the level of the system. The prosecution power in China's prosecution is exercised by the procuratorial organ, and it has an independent procedure as a supporting platform, that is to review and prosecute The procedure, which is not in many judicial areas. Considering this characteristic, I think that the procedure has the characteristic of judicial operation through the necessary design and reform of the procedure of examining and prosecuting the prosecution, thus becoming the main way to justify the right of public prosecution in the pretrial procedure. So, it is not only to abide by the current constitutional norms, the position of the procuratorial organs, but also the position of the procuratorial organs. It is quite reasonable and feasible in theory and practice.
There are six parts in this paper. Besides the introduction, the contents of each chapter are as follows:
The first chapter is the basic question of the procedure for criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter mainly defines some basic issues involved in the procedure of examination and prosecution, thus laying the foundation for the justification of the procedure. This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section points out that the procedure of examination and prosecution is to examine the process and conclusions of the investigation and to make sure that the prosecution procedure is concerned with the interests of the interests of the people. It has its own characteristics in the subject, the object, the content, the way and the result. The examination and prosecution and the prosecution review are both a form of the right to justify the public prosecution, and there is a close relationship between them. However, there are differences in the characteristics, purposes, subjects and objects of the system of public prosecution. The second section points out that in the current legislation, China has not considered the prosecution procedure as an independent procedure in theory and is not commensurate with the status of the procedure itself; the prosecution procedure not only has an independent task, but also the dominant public prosecution also presents a disorderly function, and the current procedure also provides space for the operation of this power. As an independent stage of procedure, the third section points out that the prosecutor's right to public prosecution includes the authority to review and prosecute, decide on public prosecution and attend the court, which is three party to the right of public prosecution in court trial, its justification is quite guaranteed, and the power of examination and decision in the examination and prosecution is lack of proper supervision; The justification of the prosecution procedure is not only the possibility of the abuse of the right of prosecution, but also the need for power supervision, judicial justice, human rights protection and judicial practice. The fourth section points out that the review of the prosecution procedure as a link of the criminal procedure is the scientific basis of litigation Epistemology, and the theory of risk management as a rationalization basis. Teleological skopos theory is the basis of utility, while procedural justice is the basic guarantee of the whole procedure.
The second chapter is the normative text and practice sample of the procedure of criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter mainly analyzes and investigates the systematic situation and concrete practice pattern of the procedure of the examination and prosecution in China. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section is mainly about the detailed introduction and analysis of the normative text of the procedure of the examination and prosecution, and the review is made in the review. The legitimate defects of four aspects, such as the object, the method of examination, the participation of the parties and the examination and treatment. The second section is mainly to examine the practical samples of the procedure of the prosecution. Through the investigation and Discussion on the questionnaire of the public prosecutors of the grass-roots and municipal procuratorial organs around the country, the author presents the review of the current practice. The basic understanding of the procedure, the protection of the rights of the parties, the factors that affect the case of case handling personnel, the examination of the intermediate handling in the prosecution, the basic situation of the remedies in the examination of the decision of the prosecution, and some rough suggestions for the reform, in order to understand the response of the practical people. The third section is a comprehensive and comprehensive review of the legitimacy of the procedure of the examination and prosecution. On the one hand, the procedure of examining and prosecuting the prosecution has achieved a certain degree of justification, such as the discovery of the facts of the case, the leading and activism of the procuratorial organs and the self-restraint of the procuratorial organs, but there is a lack of participation in the procuratorial organs, the investigative organs, the suspects and the victims, the limitation of power and the protection of the rights. On the other hand, the author also tries to discuss the reasons for the lack of the legitimacy of the prosecution procedure, such as the confusion of the position of the procuratorial organ, the misreading of the trial centralism, the idea of the rule of man, the conflict between the consciousness of the protection of the rights and interests and the consciousness of power and service.
The third chapter is the extraterritorial investigation of the procedure of the criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter is mainly a detailed demonstration of the system and part of the practice of the two major legal system and legal system, which is the main country for the integration of the legal system and the legal system, in order to discuss the common experience and rules in the procedure of the extraterritorial review and prosecution, and thus improve the procedure for the examination and prosecution in China. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section is the main content of the legislation and part of the practice of the review and prosecution in the main countries of the two legal systems, France, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. The second section is the main content of the legislation and part of the practice of Japan, Taiwan, China, and orus, which are more characteristic of the current legal system. Considering the uniqueness of the International Criminal Court, the article has also made a separate introduction; the third section is a summary of the three types of examination and prosecution. It not only puts forward the experience of the various legal systems, but also analyzes the overall characteristics of the various jurisdictions, and combines the characteristics of China's examination and prosecution, and proposes to perfect the procedure of China's examination and prosecution as the right to public prosecution. The only way to justify.
The fourth chapter is the macro reflection on the perfection of the procedure of criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter mainly discusses some basic questions in the procedure of perfecting the procedure of examination and prosecution. The full text is divided into three sections. The first section points out that the justification of the procedure of examination and prosecution includes the requirements of the two sides of substantive justice and procedural justice, and the substantive justice requires the procedure to be correct. When it has to be objective, progressive and efficient, procedural justice requires that justification should be embodied in the impartiality of the adjudicator, the participation of the parties and the rationality of the procedure. The second section is to discuss the position of the procuratorial organ in the procedure of the justification and prosecution. On the basis of the position analysis of the organs, it is suggested that the procuratorial organ has never been a purely judicial organ in legislation, with strong administrative nature in the right on the job, the obligation of objective justice is its universal obligation, but the procuratorial organ has never been as independent as the judge. As for the position of the Chinese procuratorial organs, the legislature is the legal supervision organ. At last, the author thinks that the procuratorial organ is the legal supervision organ, and there are many kinds of administrative or judicial choices in the way of exercising power. In the procedure of examining and prosecuting, the procuratorial organ is still the supervisor of the law, which can act as a cutter, but not one. The third section points out that the current function of China's review and prosecution procedure is mainly reflected in the investigation, the handling of cases and the autonomy of the procedure, but there is a variation in the practice, too much emphasis on the investigation, the input of the trial and the supplement of the evidence, which is not conducive to the judicial efficiency and justice. Therefore, the author suggests that the prosecution procedure will be examined. The function is re established to supervise investigation, balance trial and justify public prosecution power.
The fifth chapter is the concrete construction of the procedure for perfecting the procedure of the criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section points out a variety of exploration on the procedure of improving the procedure of the examination and prosecution, including the model of judge review, the mode of social supervision and the internal supervision mode of the procuratorial organs, but there are some shortcomings which can not be the major task of justifying the right of public prosecution. The second section is
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D925.2;D926

【参考文献】