巴南女教师性骚扰案宪法性分析
|
摘要
我国宪法第四十条规定:“中华人民共和国公民的通信自由和通信秘密受法律保护。除因国家安全或者追查刑事犯罪的需要,由公安机关或者检察机关依照法律规定的程序对通信进行检查外,任何组织或者个人不得以任何理由侵犯公民的通信自由和通信秘密。”而《民事诉讼法》第六十五条则规定:“人民法院有权向有关单位和个人调查取证,有关单位和个人不得拒绝。”
近年来,几起法院到电信部门调取证据的案件均引起法律界人士的广泛关注,法院的做法与《宪法》第四十条之规定是否相违背?《民事诉讼法》与《宪法》是否相抵触?人民法院为了执行而需要查询被执行人电话记录,这是人民法院司法工作的需要,也可以认为是实现司法权力的需要。而宪法和法律的确确认了公民的通信自由和通信秘密受法律保护的权利,这是宪法确认的公民基本权利。如果允许查询,公民的权利势必受到某种侵害;如果不允许查询,国家权利势必会遇到某种障碍。
本文以巴南女教师案为视角,从学界和实务界的不同的争议入手,简要介绍各国对通信自由和通信秘密的保护状况,然后对法院调取电信证据的行为进行剖析,认为法院到电信部门的取证权,是当事人的处分权形式之体现。我国《民事诉讼法》第十三条规定:“当事人在诉讼过程中,对自己享有的民事权利和诉讼送权利,在法律规定的范围内有权自由支配。”而法院调查取证是当事人举证的手段之一。此时,法院调查取证的行为“不是法院提供证据的行为”,而是“一方当事人提供证据行为的一部分”。法院调查取证行为是服务或服从于当事人举证行为的,或者说是当事人收集证据的辅助手段,它不具有独立的意义。当事人对所保留的信息享有知情权和支配权,因此法院依据当事人的申请取证并未侵犯他人的通信自由和通信秘密
因此,法院的调查权在有法律根据的前提下,需要有立案和查询的法律程序与法律手续。在不侵害公民合法权利前提下,应是有权到电信部门调取证据的。
Constitution the 40th stipulates our country: "PRC freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens accepts legal protection. Get rid of because of national security or find out the crime need, be in progress from public security organs or the procuratorial organ according to the legal rules procedure to communicating by letter examining that the outside , any organization or individual infringe upon freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens not to with any reason. "But, "Civil Procedure Law" the 65th is regulation:"The people's court has right to carry out investigation and obtain evidence to institution concerned and individual, institution concerned and individual refuse not to."
In recent years, The court obtains evidence to telecommunication law case broad arousing the law boundary personage's close attention . Does court's method of work if go against each other with regulation of the 40th "constitution "? Do "Civil Procedure Law" and "constitution" whether fall afoul ?
The people's court need to be inquired about by operator telephone precis writer to carry out, this is people's court judiciary job need , also can regard it being judicial being to come true the authority need. Constitution and laws has affirmed but freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens indeed accepting the legal protection right , this has been the citizen fundamental right that constitution affirms. If allowing inquiry , civil right to accept some definitely encroach on kind; If not allowing inquiry , country right definitely may come some across be hit by an obstacle.
The main body of a book take women teacher in Banan case as visual angle, it engages in different boundary dispute from educational circles and reality starting, and brief the protection situation introducing every country to freedom of correspondence and the privacy of correspondence , the behavior taking telecommunication evidence then to court tune are in progress analyse. It thinks that the court arrives at obtaining evidence of telecommunication branch is a disposition of the interested party form tentatively, that embodies. The "Civil Procedure Law" the 13rd is stipulated: "Process is hit by an interested party in legal action , civil rights and legal action enjoying to self give right , is entitled to control freely within the legal rules range." But, that the court carries out investigation and obtains evidence is interested party one of the means putting to the proof, That the court inquires into the behavior "fault obtaining evidence now, court production of evidence behavior ", but is "one party production of evidence behavior part ".The court carries out investigation and obtains evidence behavior is to serve or to obey in interested party act certificate behavior, in other words , being that the interested party collects evidence's assist a means , it does not have independent significance paragraph, the interested party enjoys right to be informed and the eminent domain to information reserved by that mailbox , the court obtains evidence therefore judging by application of interested party and does not infringe upon others's freedom of correspondence and privacy of correspondence.
So, court's investigation weighs up legal procedure and legal formalities needing to have placing a case on file for investigation and prosecution and inquiring about under premise having legal basis. Under not encroaching on the citizen lawful right premise, should be to be entitled to move telecommunication branch to obtain evidence occupying.
近年来,几起法院到电信部门调取证据的案件均引起法律界人士的广泛关注,法院的做法与《宪法》第四十条之规定是否相违背?《民事诉讼法》与《宪法》是否相抵触?人民法院为了执行而需要查询被执行人电话记录,这是人民法院司法工作的需要,也可以认为是实现司法权力的需要。而宪法和法律的确确认了公民的通信自由和通信秘密受法律保护的权利,这是宪法确认的公民基本权利。如果允许查询,公民的权利势必受到某种侵害;如果不允许查询,国家权利势必会遇到某种障碍。
本文以巴南女教师案为视角,从学界和实务界的不同的争议入手,简要介绍各国对通信自由和通信秘密的保护状况,然后对法院调取电信证据的行为进行剖析,认为法院到电信部门的取证权,是当事人的处分权形式之体现。我国《民事诉讼法》第十三条规定:“当事人在诉讼过程中,对自己享有的民事权利和诉讼送权利,在法律规定的范围内有权自由支配。”而法院调查取证是当事人举证的手段之一。此时,法院调查取证的行为“不是法院提供证据的行为”,而是“一方当事人提供证据行为的一部分”。法院调查取证行为是服务或服从于当事人举证行为的,或者说是当事人收集证据的辅助手段,它不具有独立的意义。当事人对所保留的信息享有知情权和支配权,因此法院依据当事人的申请取证并未侵犯他人的通信自由和通信秘密
因此,法院的调查权在有法律根据的前提下,需要有立案和查询的法律程序与法律手续。在不侵害公民合法权利前提下,应是有权到电信部门调取证据的。
Constitution the 40th stipulates our country: "PRC freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens accepts legal protection. Get rid of because of national security or find out the crime need, be in progress from public security organs or the procuratorial organ according to the legal rules procedure to communicating by letter examining that the outside , any organization or individual infringe upon freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens not to with any reason. "But, "Civil Procedure Law" the 65th is regulation:"The people's court has right to carry out investigation and obtain evidence to institution concerned and individual, institution concerned and individual refuse not to."
In recent years, The court obtains evidence to telecommunication law case broad arousing the law boundary personage's close attention . Does court's method of work if go against each other with regulation of the 40th "constitution "? Do "Civil Procedure Law" and "constitution" whether fall afoul ?
The people's court need to be inquired about by operator telephone precis writer to carry out, this is people's court judiciary job need , also can regard it being judicial being to come true the authority need. Constitution and laws has affirmed but freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens indeed accepting the legal protection right , this has been the citizen fundamental right that constitution affirms. If allowing inquiry , civil right to accept some definitely encroach on kind; If not allowing inquiry , country right definitely may come some across be hit by an obstacle.
The main body of a book take women teacher in Banan case as visual angle, it engages in different boundary dispute from educational circles and reality starting, and brief the protection situation introducing every country to freedom of correspondence and the privacy of correspondence , the behavior taking telecommunication evidence then to court tune are in progress analyse. It thinks that the court arrives at obtaining evidence of telecommunication branch is a disposition of the interested party form tentatively, that embodies. The "Civil Procedure Law" the 13rd is stipulated: "Process is hit by an interested party in legal action , civil rights and legal action enjoying to self give right , is entitled to control freely within the legal rules range." But, that the court carries out investigation and obtains evidence is interested party one of the means putting to the proof, That the court inquires into the behavior "fault obtaining evidence now, court production of evidence behavior ", but is "one party production of evidence behavior part ".The court carries out investigation and obtains evidence behavior is to serve or to obey in interested party act certificate behavior, in other words , being that the interested party collects evidence's assist a means , it does not have independent significance paragraph, the interested party enjoys right to be informed and the eminent domain to information reserved by that mailbox , the court obtains evidence therefore judging by application of interested party and does not infringe upon others's freedom of correspondence and privacy of correspondence.
So, court's investigation weighs up legal procedure and legal formalities needing to have placing a case on file for investigation and prosecution and inquiring about under premise having legal basis. Under not encroaching on the citizen lawful right premise, should be to be entitled to move telecommunication branch to obtain evidence occupying.
引文
1 本案在进入司法程序前,曾经过行政处理程序,重庆市巴南区教育主管部门认定该校长有向文静发了与其职位不相称内容的短信,故将其调离原岗位
2 唐忠民:“公民通信自由和通信秘密保护的两个问题”,《法学》,2007年第12期第13页。
3 需要说明的是,通信自由和通信秘密是公民的一项基本权利,各国往往对保护公民的通信自由和通信秘密作出规定。但同时,有些国家也认识到,其他类型的法律关系 主体(如法人),也存在通信自由和通信秘密的保护问题,因而在保护主体方面往往不限于公民个人。为研究方便,本文仅以公民个人为研究对象,探讨有关公民通信自由的保护问题
4注:如在1945年的蔡斯股票公司诉唐纳森一案中,美国最高法院认为,“现在所谓的基本权利即过去的自然权利”。参见[美]诺曼。维拉著《宪法公民权》第3版第201页,法律出版社。
5全国人大常委会办公厅研究室政治组编:《中国宪法精释》,中国民主法制出版社1996年版,第166页。
6甄树青:《论表达自由》,北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000年版,第178页。
7陈玉梅:“我国隐私权的民法保护与完善”,《贵州大学学报》(社会科学版),2002年第2期第36页。
8 Jord.J.Paust,The Complex Nature,Source and Evidence of Customary Human Rights Law,25Ca.J.Int' 1 &Comp.L.1996,p147,.
9 《罪犯通信、会见、特优会见、与亲属共餐的有关规定》,http://www.ltjy.gov.cn/yuwugongkai/yuwu3.html
11[法]孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》(上),张雁深译,北京;商务印书馆,1982年版,第223页。
1、[德]罗伯特.霍恩等:《德国民商法导论》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1986版。
2、许崇德:《宪法学》,北京:当代世界出版社,2000版。
3、[瑞士]托马斯·弗莱纳:《人权是什么》,谢鹏程译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000年版。
4、罗纳德·德沃金:《认真对待权利》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1998年版。
5、[美]博登海默:《法理学—法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998年版。
6、夏勇:《中国民权哲学》,北京:三联书店,2004年版。
7、文正邦主编:《宪法学》,北京:法律出版社,2005年版。
8、韩大元:《比较宪法学》,北京:高等教育出版社,2002年版。
9、周伟:《宪法基本权利司法救济研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003年版。
10、高全喜:《法律秩序与自由正义—哈耶克的法律与宪政思想》,北京:北京大学出版社,2003年版。
11、卞建林:《证据法学》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000年版。
12、田平安:《民事诉讼证据初论》,北京:中国检察出版社,2000年版。
13、王利明:《民事证据制度与理论》,北京:法律出版社,2003年版。
1、陈玉梅:“我国隐私权的民法保护与完善”,《贵州大学学报(社会科学版)》,2002年第2期。
2、王全弟、赵丽梅:“论网络隐私权的法律保护”,《民商法学》,2002年第5期。
3、肖建国:“程序公正的理念及其实现”,《法学研究》,1999年第3期。
4、蔡虹:“论证据制度的程序保障问题”,《法商研究》,1999年第5期。
6、杜承铭:“论表达自由”,《中国宪法学精萃》,2002年卷。
7、薛小建:“基本权利体系的理论与立法实践”,人大复印资料(宪法与行政法,2004年第9期
8、赵世奎:“德国基本权利理论研究”,人大复印资料(宪法与行政法),2004年第12期。
9、郑贤君:“论社会基本权的构成”,人大复印资料(宪法与行政法),2004年第6期。
10、唐忠民:“公民通信自由和通信秘密保护的两个问题”,《法学》,2007年第12期。
11、沈岿:“宪法统治时代的开始?—‘宪法第一案'存疑”,http://www.chinalawinfo.com,2001-09-24
2 唐忠民:“公民通信自由和通信秘密保护的两个问题”,《法学》,2007年第12期第13页。
3 需要说明的是,通信自由和通信秘密是公民的一项基本权利,各国往往对保护公民的通信自由和通信秘密作出规定。但同时,有些国家也认识到,其他类型的法律关系 主体(如法人),也存在通信自由和通信秘密的保护问题,因而在保护主体方面往往不限于公民个人。为研究方便,本文仅以公民个人为研究对象,探讨有关公民通信自由的保护问题
4注:如在1945年的蔡斯股票公司诉唐纳森一案中,美国最高法院认为,“现在所谓的基本权利即过去的自然权利”。参见[美]诺曼。维拉著《宪法公民权》第3版第201页,法律出版社。
5全国人大常委会办公厅研究室政治组编:《中国宪法精释》,中国民主法制出版社1996年版,第166页。
6甄树青:《论表达自由》,北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000年版,第178页。
7陈玉梅:“我国隐私权的民法保护与完善”,《贵州大学学报》(社会科学版),2002年第2期第36页。
8 Jord.J.Paust,The Complex Nature,Source and Evidence of Customary Human Rights Law,25Ca.J.Int' 1 &Comp.L.1996,p147,.
9 《罪犯通信、会见、特优会见、与亲属共餐的有关规定》,http://www.ltjy.gov.cn/yuwugongkai/yuwu3.html
11[法]孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》(上),张雁深译,北京;商务印书馆,1982年版,第223页。
1、[德]罗伯特.霍恩等:《德国民商法导论》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1986版。
2、许崇德:《宪法学》,北京:当代世界出版社,2000版。
3、[瑞士]托马斯·弗莱纳:《人权是什么》,谢鹏程译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000年版。
4、罗纳德·德沃金:《认真对待权利》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1998年版。
5、[美]博登海默:《法理学—法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998年版。
6、夏勇:《中国民权哲学》,北京:三联书店,2004年版。
7、文正邦主编:《宪法学》,北京:法律出版社,2005年版。
8、韩大元:《比较宪法学》,北京:高等教育出版社,2002年版。
9、周伟:《宪法基本权利司法救济研究》,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003年版。
10、高全喜:《法律秩序与自由正义—哈耶克的法律与宪政思想》,北京:北京大学出版社,2003年版。
11、卞建林:《证据法学》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000年版。
12、田平安:《民事诉讼证据初论》,北京:中国检察出版社,2000年版。
13、王利明:《民事证据制度与理论》,北京:法律出版社,2003年版。
1、陈玉梅:“我国隐私权的民法保护与完善”,《贵州大学学报(社会科学版)》,2002年第2期。
2、王全弟、赵丽梅:“论网络隐私权的法律保护”,《民商法学》,2002年第5期。
3、肖建国:“程序公正的理念及其实现”,《法学研究》,1999年第3期。
4、蔡虹:“论证据制度的程序保障问题”,《法商研究》,1999年第5期。
6、杜承铭:“论表达自由”,《中国宪法学精萃》,2002年卷。
7、薛小建:“基本权利体系的理论与立法实践”,人大复印资料(宪法与行政法,2004年第9期
8、赵世奎:“德国基本权利理论研究”,人大复印资料(宪法与行政法),2004年第12期。
9、郑贤君:“论社会基本权的构成”,人大复印资料(宪法与行政法),2004年第6期。
10、唐忠民:“公民通信自由和通信秘密保护的两个问题”,《法学》,2007年第12期。
11、沈岿:“宪法统治时代的开始?—‘宪法第一案'存疑”,http://www.chinalawinfo.com,2001-09-24