论文部分内容阅读
中国宪法上的独立行使审判权制度,源自苏联,并经历了“五四宪法”第78条和“八二宪法”第126条的发展。长久以来,中国法学界围绕“五四宪法”第78条与“八二宪法”第126条,展开了热烈的比较与争论,其实质在于如何理解独立行使审判权制度。对“八二宪法”第126条的宪法解释表明,其涵义既不包括党、国家权力机关、检察机关不能干涉人民法院依法独立行使审判权,也不包括党、国家权力机关、检察机关可以干涉人民法院依法独立行使审判权,而是留下了一定缺漏。这暗合了党政机关和领导干部干预司法的现象,由此,需要从党政关系层面进一步反思独立行使审判权制度,在十八届四中全会提出建立防止党政机关和领导干部干预司法制度的背景下,可以考虑在适当时机推动宪法的修改,恢复“五四宪法”第78条的规定。
The constitutional system of independent exercise of judicial power originates in the Soviet Union and has undergone the development of Article 78 of the “May 4th Constitution” and Article 126 of the “August 2 Constitution.” For a long time, the Chinese jurisprudence has heatedly compared and contrasted with Article 78 of the “May 4th Constitution” and Article 126 of the “August 2 Constitution”. The essence lies in how to understand the system of exercising jurisdiction independently. The constitutional interpretation of Article 126 of the Constitution of 8 August shows that its implication neither includes the fact that the party or the state power organs or procuratorial organs can not interfere in the people’s courts in exercising their jurisdiction independently in accordance with the law, nor does the party, the state authority, the procuratorial organs They can interfere in the people’s courts independently exercising their jurisdiction in accordance with the law, but leave some gaps. This is a coincidence of the intervention of the party and government organs and leading cadres in the judiciary. Therefore, it is necessary to further reflect on the relationship between party and government to independently exercise the power of judicial power. At the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, it was proposed to prevent the party and government organs and leading cadres from intervening in the judicial system In the context of this, we can consider promoting the amendment of the Constitution at the appropriate time and restoring the provisions of Article 78 of the “May 4th Constitution.”