合宪性审查中的立法事实认定

发布时间：2018-04-29 12:25

本文选题：合宪性审查 + 立法事实　；参考：《法学家》2016年06期

【摘要】：作为代议机关的人民代表大会及其常委会制定的法律及地方性法规虽然有民意的支撑,但此类立法的合宪性取决于其是否有相关的社会经济方面的事实基础。因而,对立法事实加以认定,便成为了针对立法实施合宪性审查的重要环节。立法事实包括与立法目的有关的事实、与立法的手段和目的之关联性相关的事实,以及作为法益衡量之前提的事实。在由司法机关针对立法的合宪性实施审查的国家,法院在认定立法事实时通常采取自制的立场。我国虽未采取由法院实施合宪性审查的体制,但考虑到审查的程序、立法机关予以回应的时限,以及审查的目的,作为审查主体的人民代表大会及其常委会亦应在认定立法事实方面保持一定程度的自制。针对立法实施合宪性审查时的自制技术包括将审查基准与不确定性原则相结合,以及程序性审查优先。
[Abstract]:Although the laws and regulations enacted by the people's Congress and its standing committee as representative organs are supported by public opinion, the constitutionality of such legislation depends on whether it has the relevant social and economic factual basis. Therefore, to confirm the legislative facts has become an important link in the constitutionality review of the implementation of legislation. The legislative facts include the facts related to the legislative purpose, the relevance of the legislative means and the ends, and the facts as the premise of the measurement of legal interest. In countries where the judiciary reviews the constitutionality of legislation, courts usually take a self-control position in determining legislative facts. Although our country does not adopt a system of constitutional review by the courts, it takes into account the procedure of the review, the time frame within which the legislature responds, and the purpose of the review. The people's Congress and its standing committee, as the subject of review, should also maintain a certain degree of self-control in the determination of legislative facts. Self-made techniques for implementing constitutionality review in legislation include combining the review benchmark with the principle of uncertainty, and giving priority to procedural review.
【作者单位】：厦门大学法学院;
【基金】：2015年度福建省社科规划项目青年项目“《立法法》修改后福建省较大的市地方性法规合法性审查标准研究”(FJ2015C034)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D921

【相似文献】