評論
專題
攝影
多媒體
議題
signin
登入
Search
搜尋
bookmark_red
書籤
donate
贊助
訂閱
同婚釋憲案言詞辯論庭紀實──對的人為什麼不能做對的事?
攝影
「我等這天等了41年6個月又24天…」2017年3月24日,59歲的男同性戀者祁家威完成了他17歲開始的一個夢──站上憲法法庭為全台灣的同性戀者爭取婚姻權。
「目前在醫學上同性戀是正常的人,也是對的人,婚姻是正常的事也是對的事,對的人做對的事,為什麼不可以?」祁家威在言詞辯論庭上堅定地說著。
身為台灣第一位公開出櫃的同性戀者,祁家威曾兩度申請同性婚姻遭拒,隨後依法聲請釋憲,第一次因司法院不受理無疾而終,事隔15年的第二次申請終於成功取得受理資格,而與祁家威共同擔任聲請方的是作為戶政主管機關的台北市政府,北市府於2015年提出釋憲聲請,希望大法官能就同性伴侶無法依法登記結婚是否違憲作出解釋。
2016年底,婚姻平權草案送進立法院,引起正反雙方強力動員,雙方動輒數十萬人的動員讓立法院不敢輕舉妄動,目前法案通過司法及法制委員會審查後靜待政黨協商,許多同婚支持者期待司法院大法官能盡早作成同婚釋憲,藉由司法途徑達成婚姻平權。
彷彿回應社會期待般,司法院大法官於今年2月發布新聞稿表示,將審理台北市政府、祁家威就民法第4編親屬第2章婚姻規定「使同性別二人間不能成立法律上婚姻關係」的聲請解釋案,並於3月24日上午9時在憲法法庭開庭進行言詞辯論,過程全程直播。
Fill 1
同婚釋憲案申請人祁家威。(攝影/林佑恩)
同婚釋憲案申請人祁家威。(攝影/林佑恩)
言詞辯論在訴訟程序中指的是原告、被告雙方在法庭上的攻防戰,在憲法法庭上則以聲請方及關係機關的交互詢答為主,再由鑑定人陳述鑑定意見。
此次聲請方為祁家威及台北市政府,關係機關則包括法務部、內政部及萬華戶政事務所,鑑定人則有陳愛娥、張文貞、陳惠馨、劉宏恩、李惠宗及鄧學仁等6位法學學者,而15位大法官除了民進黨立委尤美女夫婿黃瑞明迴避外,其餘14位皆出席言詞辯論。
在此次言詞辯論庭開庭前,司法院已事先公布主要爭點,庭上各方將就以下四點爭點進行辯論。

言詞辯論庭四大爭點

1. 民法第4編親屬第2章婚姻規定是否容許同性別二人結婚? 2. 答案如為否定,是否違反憲法第22條所保障婚姻自由之規定? 3. 又是否違反憲法第7條保障平等權之意旨? 4. 如立法創設非婚姻之其他制度(例如同性伴侶),是否符合憲法第7條保障平等權以及第22條保障婚姻自由之意旨?

換句話說,四大爭點要先釐清《民法》是否容許同性伴侶結婚,若確定現行民法限制同性伴侶結婚,則要進一步討論目前法條是否違反《憲法》第22條
凡人民之其他自由及權利,不妨害社會秩序公共利益者,均受憲法之保障 。
第7條
中華民國人民,無分男女、宗教、種族、階級、黨派,在法律上一律平等 。
所保障的婚姻自由及平等權,最後討論是否可能透過非婚姻制度(如同性伴侶)達成《憲法》保障婚姻自由的意旨。

民法禁止同性伴侶結婚嗎?

同志要爭取婚姻平權不就是因為《民法》禁止同性伴侶結婚嗎?這或許是許多人看到第一個爭點時的疑惑,實際上,由於《民法》並未於條文中明定婚姻屬於「一男一女」,因此這點在法理上仍有爭議,庭上各方對此也有不同的解釋。
如果《民法》沒有明確規定,為什麼大多數人仍認為同婚不合法呢?原因便出在1994年的一紙函釋,由於當時祁家威向內政部請命准予同婚合法,內政部邀集法務部討論後,由法務部作出「我國現行民法所謂之『結婚』,必為一男一女結合關係,同性之結合則非屬之」的函釋,成為同婚合法與否的緊箍咒。
祁家威代理人許秀雯於庭上指出,爭點一根據現行《民法》可能有2種解釋。如果大法官以《民法》無明文禁止同婚而做出合憲解釋,那應該宣布1994年法務部的函釋無效;若大法官就文義及歷史解釋等方法認定《民法》禁止同性婚姻,則違反爭點二、爭點三中提及的《憲法》平等權及婚姻自由權,應被判定違憲。
台北市政府代理人廖元豪也認為,現行《民法》在正常解釋底下並不包含同性婚姻,就第二個及第三個爭點來說,已牴觸《憲法》第22條及第7條所保障的婚姻自由及平等權,應宣告違憲。
儘管2位聲請人對爭點一至三的看法一致,身為《民法》主管機關的法務部卻有截然不同的看法。
就爭點一來說,法務部長邱太三認為現行《民法》難以導出容許同性別兩人結婚的結論,但邱太三認為婚姻自由並不是《憲法》第7至21條所明文列舉的基本權利,因此現行《民法》並不違背《憲法》第22條;邱太三也認為現行《民法》限於一男一女的婚姻規定是立法機關斟酌事實做出的「合理的差別待遇」,為「立法形成自由」,並不違背《憲法》第7條所保障的平等權。

同性伴侶法違憲嗎?

「立法形成自由」是指在三權分立之下,司法應尊重立法者意見,將部分事情交由立法者形成。延續著「立法形成自由」說,邱太三進一步闡述爭點四「其他非婚姻制度是否符合《憲法》所保障的平等權及婚姻自由?」邱太三表示,在無損婚姻及其他公共利益的前提下,給予其他制度的法律(如同性伴侶法)保障也屬「立法形成自由」,並無違反平等原則,也符合憲法第22條所保障的基本權利,意即同性伴侶制度合憲。
聲請方立場則完全相反。
廖元豪認為爭點四是針對一個現在不存在的法律,北市府無法回答這樣假設性的問題;許秀雯則認為在邏輯上並不存在著一種「不允許同志結婚卻不違憲的方式」,因此要解決同志結婚自由遭到剝奪的問題,除了恢復同志結婚的自由外,別無他法。
相較於法務部的鮮明立場,內政部及萬華戶政事務所立場較為溫和,內政部代表強調內政部僅為戶籍法主管機關,儘管理結婚戶籍登記程序,婚姻實質內容尊重法務部意見;萬華戶政事務所則表示,同性婚姻與現行《民法》規定不符,故戶政機關無法為同性伴侶辦理婚姻登記,其餘事項交由大法官解釋。

修改民法危及公共利益?

Fill 1
同婚釋憲案言詞辯論庭。(攝影/林佑恩)
同婚釋憲案言詞辯論庭。(攝影/林佑恩)
聲請方顯然對於邱太三的說法不滿,於交叉詰問時不斷追問邱太三立場。廖元豪詢問,邱太三提及伴侶制度要在不危及婚姻及公共利益的狀況下來做,修改《民法》將同性婚姻法制化會影響什麼公共利益?造成那些不良影響?
邱太三先說修改《民法》影響的不僅是《民法》,好比對重婚罪、《刑法》第239條的通姦罪都有影響,將對家庭婚姻機制造成衝擊,第二個影響他則語氣輕鬆地以個人生活事實為例,提到過年祭祖時有長輩問他,若同性婚姻合法,將來祖先牌位該怎麼寫?「兩個都寫考考?還是妣妣?整個家族就為了這個產生了爭辯。」此外他也提到近日收到訃聞,讓他思考到若同性婚姻合法,未來訃聞上要寫媳婦還是女婿,他認為這些稱謂的改變將對於生活及社會造成衝擊。
許秀雯則對邱太三將專法訂立歸於「立法形成自由」的說法不滿,於交叉詰問時不斷追問邱立法形成自由是否有界限?如果為無生育能力者另立結婚專法是否符合「立法形成自由」?不過邱太三僅回答生育並非《民法》婚姻要件,並未正面回答立法形成自由是否有界限。
而對於現行《民法》規定是否違憲,以及《同性伴侶法》是否合憲,鑑定人也有不同的看法。
陳惠馨、張文貞及劉宏恩認為現行《民法》相關規定已違憲,陳惠馨主張制定《同性伴侶法》反而是對婚姻制度的破壞,若將同性婚姻納入《民法》,才是對婚姻的保障,主張應直接修改《民法》;張文貞則指出各國做的解釋都明確指出婚姻權和婚姻自由是憲法上的基本權益,因此排斥同性婚姻已違憲,而「立法形成自由」的界線便是人民基本權利,若採同性伴侶法仍無法保障基本權利,主張應直接修改《民法》。
陳愛娥及李惠宗則主張現行《民法》相關規定並不違憲,並可透過婚姻外的法律保障來增強對同志的保障。陳愛娥比較美國與德國對於同婚議題的差異,指出美國聯邦最高法院認定婚姻自由,將婚姻是為個人權益保障,德國則是把婚姻視為一種制度,要從婚姻制度的核心是否為異性婚姻來審查是否違憲,她也認為德國同性伴侶可以提供保障,不失為一種選項;李惠宗則主張法律針對通常現象,由於通常現象是異性婚,因此現行法規並不違憲,但目前欠缺針對同性戀者的制度保障是嚴重的立法懈怠,有違憲之虞,可考慮透過給予法律上的保障來補足。
至於大法官對四個爭點的結論為何?審判長許宗力宣告,言詞辯論已充足,將會於庭末諭知言詞辯論終結,會在一個月內(即4月24日)指定公布日期,做出本案解釋文,即最慢會在5月24日前作出解釋文。
「專法是次等公民的對待,好像異性戀騎了一個摩托車,兩個人坐可以騎很遠,但專法就好像是給協力車或腳踏車,短程還好,騎長程會很累。」最後陳述時,祁家威給了個生動的描述,在婚姻平權這條路上跑了30年,他再也不想要次等的待遇了,他只期待能跟異性戀者一樣,走得又長又遠。
🄴🄽

🄴🄽

Same-Sex Marriage Gets Its Day In Taiwan’s Highest Court

"I've been waiting for this day for 41 years, six months, and 24 days,” says Chi Chia-wei (祁家威).
Now 59 years old, Chi has realized a dream he’s had since he was 17: he’s about to argue for marriage equality for same-sex couples in Taiwan’s constitutional court.
"Modern medicine deemed homosexuals as normal, and that we are good people. Marriage is a normal thing, and it’s also a good thing. So why are good people forbidden from doing good things?” said Chi during his statement.
As the first gay man to come out publicly in Taiwan, Chi's marriage registration request has been rejected twice, and he subsequently filed petitions for constitutional interpretations. The Constitutional Court did not take his first petition. 15 years later, the courts have decided to hear Chi's second petition.
The court also heard a 2015 petition by the Taipei city government, requesting the court to rule on the constitutionality of the ban that denies same-sex couples the right to register for a marriage license.
In the final months of 2016, Taiwan’s parliament —the Legislative Yuan—started reviewing a number of bills that recognize same-sex marriage. This triggered massive mobilization from both supporters and opponents of marriage equality, with hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets. The Legislative Yuan managed the issue with upmost prudence. The Committee for Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statues completed a review, and brought the bill forward for party negotiation. Many supporters expected the courts to provide a strong mandate for the ruling.
In February 2017, the courts informed the press that it will take up the petition, and rule on the constitutionality of chapter four of the civil code that "rejects same-sex couples to enter legal marriage."
On March 24th, at 9am, the court commenced oral arguments, and broadcasted the entire debate live online.
The courts announced that the following four legal issues are to be discussed in the oral argument:
  1. Do the current laws, that is, regulations on marriage in civil codes, allow same-sex couples to get married?
  2. If not, do they violate Article 22 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of marriage?
  3. Also, do the current laws violate Article 7 of the Constitution, which guarantees the principle of equality?
  4. Will it be constitutional, under Article 7 (equality) and Article 22 (marriage freedom), to provide alternative legal protections, such as same-sex partnerships?
In other words, the Court intends to clarify if the current civil code allows same-sex couples to get married.
If the current laws forbids same-sex couples to get married, the next logical question is whether such a ban violates two constitutional articles, Article 22, which reads, "All other freedoms and rights of the people that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare shall be guaranteed under the constitution," and Article 7, which reads, "All citizens of the Republic of China, irrespective of sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation, shall be equal before the law." Finally, the Court would consider the possibility to protect marriage freedom via alternative institutions, such as same-sex partnerships.
Fill 1
Photo by Lin Yu-en.
Photo by Lin Yu-en.

Does the civil code forbid same-sex marriage?

Many might wonder, isn't the current legal ban the reason why supporters strive for marriage equality now? In fact, the civil code does not really specify that parties who enter a marriage need to be "one man and one woman." But a letterin 1994, issued by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), did interpret that "the current civil code defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, which excludes two persons of the same sex."
This letter was drafted in a discussion between the MOJ and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MOI), after Chi requested to register for a marriage license. It thereafter officially banned the registration practice in Taiwan.
Chi's attorney, Victoria Hsu (許秀雯), argued that there are two ways of interpreting the current civil code. First, if the Court rules that the civil code does not forbid same-sex marriage, the letter by the MOJ in 1994 should be deemed unconstitutional. Second, if the Court rules that the civil code does forbid same-sex marriage, following the method of  the textual and historical interpretation, then the code is to be declared unconstitutional because it goes against the principle of equality and the freedom of marriage, guaranteed in the constitution.
Similarly, Professor Liao Yuan-hao (廖元豪), who represents the Taipei City Government, argues that the current civil code does not include same-sex marriage, hence violates article 7 and 22.
The two petitioners share views on the first three legal issues that the Court wanted to clarify. However, the MOJ, the agency in charge of revising civil codes, takes a very different legal stance.
Justice Minister Chiu Tai-san (邱太三) believes that there is very limited legal ground that can be inferred from the current civil code to allow same-sex marriage. Chiu also argues that freedom of marriage is not a listed fundamental right with textual support from article 7 to 21 in the constitution, therefore, the civil code does not violate article 22 of the constitution.
He also argues that limiting "marriage" to the union between one man and one woman falls within the discretion of the legislative branch, as it is the legislators' prerogative to determine "reasonable differentiated treatment" in accordance with social facts. Hence, the ban on the civil code does not violate Article 7, which protects equality for all.

Is marriage equality legislation at odds with the Constitution? 

Legislative prerogative or “freedom of legislation” means that under the separation of powers, the judiciary should respect the opinions of the Legislative Yuan and give a portion of responsibilities to legislators.
In order for freedom of legislation to continue, Chiu disputes the fourth argument brought up during oral arguments, that is: “Is it constitutional to provide alternative legal protection for same-sex partnerships?”
Chiu believes that as long as marriage and other public interests remain unharmed, laws that grant protection to other arrangements (such as the ones suggested in the marriage equality law) is a process that falls under the Legislative Yuan’s prerogative. These laws do not betray the principle of equality and are in accordance with the guarantee of basic rights as outlined in article 22 of the Constitution. This means that the marriage equality arrangement is not against the Constitution.
But there are differences of opinion. Liao Yuan-hao believes that the fourth argument is made for a non-existent law, and the Taipei city government cannot answer this kind of hypothetical question.
Victoria Hsu, on the other hand, thinks that “a method that does not allow same-sex marriage but also does not oppose the constitution” simply does not make sense. Therefore, in order to solve the problem of Taiwan’s LGBT community being deprived of their rights to marry, the only way forward is to fight back for that freedom.
Compared to the strong opinions of the MOJ, the opinion of the MOI is rather mild.
The MOI is of the opinion that only they are in charge of household registration laws, which entails the management of marriage and household registration processes. The MOI respects the opinions of the MOJ on issues concerning the actual content of marriage.
Fill 1
Photo by Lin Yu-en.
Photo by Lin Yu-en.

Does amending the Civil Code harm public interests?

Chi, Hsu, Liao et al. were obviously dissatisfied with Chiu’s argument. They battled against his viewpoint tirelessly during the cross-examination period.
Liao questioned Chiu’s assertion that spousal arrangements should be made with the intent of ‘not harming the institution of marriage and the interests of the public.’
“Then how would amendments to the civil code to legalize same-sex marriage affect public interests? What are the downsides?” said Liao.
Chiu replied that it would not only affect the civil code, but also the penal code. The amendments would have an influence on how bigamy is treated, affecting article 239 of the penal code (an article relating to adultery). Chiu adds that it would impact the very institution of family and marriage.
He says there will be a “second influence on the family unit”. He mentions a personal anecdote where an elderly person asked him a question about same-sex marriage during the Lunar New Year celebrations.
“How would they write down the name of the parents on a family’s ancestral tablet?” said Chiu. “Would they write the names of the two deceased fathers? Or the names of the two deceased mothers? The whole family would have an argument on this.”
Furthermore, after receiving an obituary over the past few days, he wondered how future obits would be written?
“Would they have to write ‘son-in-law’ for a man’s partner, or ‘daughter-in-law’ for a woman’s partner?” Chiu says that the changes to these titles will have an impact on life and society.
Hsu wasn’t satisfied with how Chiu used “freedom of legislation” to argue for an amendment to the laws. During cross-examination, she questioned Chiu on the limits of freedom of legislation. If specific marriage laws were created for infertile couples, would there still be freedom of legislation? Chiu replied that fertility is not a condition of marriage as outlined in the civil code and did not directly respond to the question of whether there is a limit to freedom of legislation.
Critics are also divided on whether the existing civil code provisions are unconstitutional and whether the marriage equality law is constitutional.
Some believe that certain regulations in the civil code are already violating the Constitution and that the limits of freedom of legislation is basic rights of citizens. If the adoption of marriage equality laws still cannot protect citizens, then the civil code should be amended.
Other critics maintain that the related regulations in the civil code currently in force do not violate the constitution and that protection of LGBT peoples can be strengthened through the protection of extra-marital laws.
Chen Ai-Er (陳愛娥), professor of law at National Taiwan University, compares and contrasts discussions in the US and Germany on the issue of same-sex marriage. She points out that the US Supreme Court recognizes marriage equality and the protection of human rights, while in Germany marriage is seen as a regulation. The question of whether the constitution has been violated needs to be investigated based on the core of marriage regulations, which is based on heterosexual marriage. Chen believes that Germany’s system grants protection to same-sex couples and their model can be an option for Taiwan.
Meanwhile, Lee Hwai-Tzong (李惠宗), professor of law at National Chung Hsing University, argues that the law is aimed at handling common situations and phenomena. Since heterosexual marriages are the most common phenomena, the regulations in force do not violate the constitution. However, since the most urgent legislative issue at hand is the fact that there are no regulations that protect gay rights, a constitutional violation cannot be ruled out, and appropriate legal protections should be granted to accommodate this oversight.
What kind of conclusion will the Grand Justices come to on the 4 arguments? Judge Hsu Tzong-Li (許宗力) announced that the arguments are sufficient and will declare an end to the debate. The issue date for the report will be determined within a month, with an announcement to be made by May 24th, 2017, at the latest.
During his final statement, Chi Chia-wei gave a vivid description of what’s at stake, speaking against a special law that would avoid an amendment to the civil code.
“A ‘special law’ [as opposed to amending the civil code] is what you would give second-class citizens. Right now, heterosexuals are given the equivalent of a motorcycle under the law. Two people can ride on it a long distance. But a special law only for the LGBT community is the equivalent of giving us a tandem bicycle. It’s only good for the short run, and very tiring in the long run.”
After running on this path of marriage equality for 30 years, Chi no longer wants to be treated as a second-class citizen. He looks forward to treading the same road as heterosexual men and women.

用行動支持報導者

優質深度報導必須投入優秀記者、足夠時間與大量資源⋯⋯我們需要細水長流的小額贊助,才能走更長遠的路。 竭誠歡迎認同《報導者》理念的朋友贊助支持我們!

本文依 CC 創用姓名標示-非商業性-禁止改作3.0台灣授權條款釋出

延伸閱讀

載入更多文章