《人民检察院组织法》第21条之法理分析
|
摘要
《人民检察院组织法》第21条虽属程序性规定,但其"入法"既符合组织法的立法目的和任务,又是现实立法策略选择的结果,并非肆意立法。第21条的适用对象也非仅局限于检察机关,任何对检察机关履职行权承担义务的主体,包括有关单位和个人,皆应一体适用。此外,对于义务人违反第21条所应承担的违法后果与责任,需结合第48条进行解读。义务违反时,检察机关首应采取必要措施强制义务人履行义务,而非一味强调追责。
Although Article 21 of the "Amendment"is a procedural regulation,its "entry into the law"not only conforms to the legislative purpose and task of the the Organization Law of the People's Procuratorate,but also is the result of the choice of realistic legislative strategy. It is not arbitrary legislation. The application object of Article 21 is not limited to the procuratorial organs. Any subject that undertakes the obligations from the authorities performed by procuratorial organs,including the relevant units and individuals,shall be regulated by Article 21. In addition,the consequences and responsibilities of the obligor in violation of Article 21 shall be interpreted in conjunction with Article 48. When the obligation is violated,instead of emphasizing the accountability,the procuratorate shall first take the necessary measures to force the obligor to perform the obligation.
Although Article 21 of the "Amendment"is a procedural regulation,its "entry into the law"not only conforms to the legislative purpose and task of the the Organization Law of the People's Procuratorate,but also is the result of the choice of realistic legislative strategy. It is not arbitrary legislation. The application object of Article 21 is not limited to the procuratorial organs. Any subject that undertakes the obligations from the authorities performed by procuratorial organs,including the relevant units and individuals,shall be regulated by Article 21. In addition,the consequences and responsibilities of the obligor in violation of Article 21 shall be interpreted in conjunction with Article 48. When the obligation is violated,instead of emphasizing the accountability,the procuratorate shall first take the necessary measures to force the obligor to perform the obligation.
引文
[1]对妨碍检察官职务行使行为的实体责任,如《人民检察院组织法》第47条之规定:“任何单位或者个人不得要求检察官从事超出法定职责范围的事务。对于领导干部等干预司法活动、插手具体案件处理,或者人民检察院内部人员过问案件情况的,办案人员应当全面如实记录并报告;有违法违纪情形的,由有关机关根据情节轻重追究行为人的责任。”再如第48条之规定:“人民检察院采取必要措施,维护办案安全。对妨碍人民检察院依法行使职权的违法犯罪行为,依法追究法律责任。”
[2][德]卡尔·拉伦茨:《法学方法论》,陈爱娥译,五南图书出版股份有限公司2013年版,第162页。
[3]很简单,拘留了证人,在拘留期间,证人事实上仍然无法出庭,这势必影响庭审正常进行,不符合强制证人出庭的目的。因此,拘留只有在情节严重、迫不得已的情形下才使用,目的已经变为制裁和惩罚。
[4]试想,若在人民检察院调查核实过程中,被调查对象可以毫不理睬,甚至大摇大摆地离开,则将人民检察院的调查核实权置于何地?人民检察院的调查核实权还有何实效性可言?因此,赋予调查核实权必要的强制性是合理的。
[2][德]卡尔·拉伦茨:《法学方法论》,陈爱娥译,五南图书出版股份有限公司2013年版,第162页。
[3]很简单,拘留了证人,在拘留期间,证人事实上仍然无法出庭,这势必影响庭审正常进行,不符合强制证人出庭的目的。因此,拘留只有在情节严重、迫不得已的情形下才使用,目的已经变为制裁和惩罚。
[4]试想,若在人民检察院调查核实过程中,被调查对象可以毫不理睬,甚至大摇大摆地离开,则将人民检察院的调查核实权置于何地?人民检察院的调查核实权还有何实效性可言?因此,赋予调查核实权必要的强制性是合理的。