憲法判決依據的不是法條主義

The reasons why the amendments to the Constitutional Litigation Act were declared unconstitutional can be summarized into the following four points, providing a clear, concise, and logically coherent understanding of the essence of its unconstitutionality:

1. Violation of the Separation of Powers and Constitutional Operating Principles — Under the system of separation of powers, no branch of government—including the Constitutional Court—may be compelled to cease operations. The amended Constitutional Litigation Act rendered the Constitutional Court unable to convene due to insufficient justices, effectively paralyzing the core functions of this constitutional institution. This action obstructs rather than promotes constitutional operations, rendering it clearly unconstitutional. Even if the legislative process formally complied with majority rule in the Legislative Yuan, the lack of substantive deliberation and discussion means that, in substance, it still deviates from fundamental constitutional principles.
2. Application of the Old Law in Adjudication to Avoid Circular Reasoning -- When amendments are challenged through a constitutional petition, the Constitutional Court must apply the pre-amendment (old) law as the standard for review. If the new law were used to review itself, it would fall into the fallacy of “circular logic” (begging the question): if the new law is deemed constitutional based on endorsement by the old law, it automatically gains legitimacy; conversely, if it is deemed unconstitutional, this would contradict the assumption of applying the new law. Therefore, constitutional review must revert to the old law to maintain logical consistency and legitimacy.
3. The Conduct of the Three Female Justices Demonstrates Their Unsuitability -- The three female justices adopted a narrow legal positivist (formalist) perspective, refusing to attend deliberations and publicly submitting opinion pieces to newspapers. Such overt expressions of position and failure to fulfill their duties have, by their own actions, demonstrated their inability to impartially perform the role of justices, thereby revealing their unsuitability as guardians of the Constitution.
4. The Duties of Constitutional Justices Transcend Legal Formalism -- In interpreting the Constitution, justices are by no means limited to the mechanical application of legal formalism. The Constitution lies at the intersection of law, politics, and philosophy. Constitutional review should integrate legal philosophy, constitutional principles, and political science principles, while anticipating future developments, to guide the political system toward greater progress—rather than being confined solely to formal provisions.

The core reasoning of this decision, declaring the amended Constitutional Litigation Act unconstitutional, emphasizes that the amendments were flawed not only procedurally but, more critically, substantively damaged the constitutional order and the principle of separation of powers.

有關《憲法訴訟法》修正案被宣告違憲的理由，主要可整理為以下四點，用以簡單順暢且邏輯清晰的理解憲法訴訟法的違憲本質：

1. 違反權力分立與憲政運作原則：在三權分立體制下，任何權力部門（包括憲法法庭）均不得被迫停止運作。新修正的憲法訴訟法法導致憲法法庭因人數不足而無法開庭，形同癱瘓憲政機關的核心功能，此舉因不是促進而是妨礙憲政運作，故明顯違憲。即使程序上符合立法院多數決，考量並未實質審議與討論，實質上仍背離憲政基本原理。
2. 審判適用舊法，避免循環邏輯：當新修正法被聲請釋憲時，憲法法庭審理時必須以適用舊法作為基準。若改用新法審理自身，就會陷入「套套邏輯」（循環論證）的謬誤：新法若因舊法背書且被認定合憲，新法自然獲得正當性；若新法被認定違憲，即違背了適用新法的假設。因此，審理釋憲案必須回歸舊法，方能維持邏輯一致與正當性。
3. 三位女大法官的行為顯示其不適格：三位女大法官採取狹隘的法條主義（法匠）觀點，拒絕出席評議並對外投書報章，此種公開表態與不履行職責的行為，已自證其難以超然履行大法官職責，從而顯示其作為憲法守護者的不適格。
4. 大法官職責超越法條主義：大法官解釋憲法時，絕非僅限於法條主義的機械適用。憲法乃法律、政治與哲學的交會點，違憲審查應綜合法哲學、憲政原理、政治學原理，並預判未來情勢發展，以引導政治體制朝向更進步的方向前進，而非僅拘泥於形式條文。

此次新憲法訴訟法判決違憲的核心論理，強調新法不僅程序有瑕疵，更在實質上損害憲政秩序與權力分立原則。