民事证据收集制度研究

【作者】 肖晗；

【导师】 常怡；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民事诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 证据收集制度是一个古老而常新的话题。可以说,自诉讼成为解决社会纠纷的途经以来,证据收集制度即已存在,只不过不同的诉讼模式有着相应不同的证据收集制度而已。本文针对我国现行民事证据收集制度及其在实际运行、理论研究中所存在的种种缺陷和弊端,力求在以下几个方面有所突破和创新:1.第一次提出了一个较完整的民事证据收集制度建议稿。该建议稿共设62个条文,具体包括民事证据调查收集的通则、当事人及其诉讼代理人调查收集证据的规则、人民法院调查收集证据的规则、人民检察院调查收集证据的规则、民事证据调查收集的保障规则、法律责任规则六项内容。该建议稿既涉及当事人及其诉讼代理人的取证规则,也涉及法院、检察院的取证规则;既有权利(力)性规则,也有义务性规则,还有罚则等。应该说,这是本文为证据收集制度的完善所作的最大贡献。2.重新界确定了民事证据收集应遵循的基本原则和要求。民事证据收集应遵循的基本原则包括以当事人调查收集为主导,以人民法院、人民检察院调查收集为辅助的原则,平等原则,诚实信用原则,收集必要证据原则,以及配合和协助原则。其中,第一个原则也是对我国民事证据收集模式的框定;在民事诉讼中,为节约取证成本、提高诉讼效率,应强调收集必要证据而不是全面收集证据,因此收集必要证据原则是对全面收集证据原则的修正。收集必要证据原则有两层含义:一是只有当事人负证明责任时才有必要收集证据;二是在当事人负证明责任的情况下,收集证据也以必要为原则,不强调全面收集。同时,在民事诉讼中收集证据还应遵守合法、及时、细致、把握重点等基本要求。其中,把握重点是为配合收集必要证据原则的适用而提出,也是确定收集证据之客体范围时的必然要求,其含义是当事人及其代理人在收集证据过程中,不应当眉毛胡子一把抓,而应当重点收集那些证明力强、证据价值高的证据,其目的是为减少证据收集过程中的盲动性和浪费性。3.探讨了证据收集的性质和目的。在性质上,一般认为,证据收集是一种权利性而不是一种权力性诉讼行为。笔者主张假法院之手,为当事人及其诉讼代理人收集证据戴上一顶强制性桂冠,从而使其取证权由纯粹的权利转变为带有一定权力性质的权利。取证主体收集证据的目的可分为直接目的和最终目的两个方面。收集证据的直接目的是发现案件真实,最终目的则是保障当事人的某项特定利益。4.完善了当事人及其诉讼代理人收集证据的方法和程序保障规则。收集证据的方法和程序可谓民事证据收集制度的核心内容。其他国家和我国台湾的民事诉讼法赋予了当事人广泛的收集证据的权利和充分的收集证据的方法与程序保障规则。笔者在借鉴域外有关做法和经验的基础上,对我国当事人及其诉讼代理人收集证据的方法和程序保障规则进行了设计:首先确立了证据收集的程序运作规则,即赋予人民法院阐明权以指导当事人收集证据、赋予当事人及其诉讼代理人以收集证据的方法等。其次提出了证据收集的保障机制,包括取证主体取证权的保障机制、确保所取证据合法有效的保障机制(即非法证据排除规则的完善)以及证据收集的罚则(即有关人员拒不履行协助义务时的责任追究机制)等。其中,最先主张我国应当借鉴台湾的经验,重新确立存证信函制度为收集证据的方法。5.重新界定了法院调查取证的范围。按照现行法律的有关规定,我国民事诉讼中有权收集证据的主体有当事人及其诉讼代理人、人民法院、人民检察院。就今后证据收集之权限配置的改革而言,证据收集主要应由当事人及其代理人完成;完全取消人民法院的取证权与中国实际情况不合,况且世界上没有哪一个国家绝对取消了法院收集证据的职权或放弃法院对收集证据的控制权和管理权,但对法院行使取证权应严加规范,尽量限制其取证决定的随意性。同时,鉴于收集证据的权限配置不可能做到绝对合理而只能相对合理,且过分强调程序公正而忽视实体公正既非中国司法的传统,也非中国司法公正所追求的理想目标,故宜适当扩大人民法院调查收集证据的范围。这既包括扩大法院依职权调查取证的案件范围,也包括扩大法院依申请调查取证的案件范围,同时还明确了鉴定、勘验、证据保全等事项也可由法院依职权进行。6.通过实际调研、条文分析和文献分析,基本摸清了当前我国民事证据收集制度的“家底”并找出了其“症结”,从而为问题的分析和建议稿的提出奠定客观基础。在我国民事诉讼中,证据收集主体的变化(由法官调查取证变为主要由当事人及其诉讼代理人收集证据)是民事审判方式改革的重要一环。在理论上,改革者意图很大程度地削弱法官调查取证的权力,以确立当事人权利的现代化转型,树立当事人的程序主体地位。然而,由于各种原因,1991年的《民事诉讼法》以及后来的有关司法解释虽然确立了当事人为主法官为辅的调查收集证据的模式,但是却并未赋予当事人充分的收集证据的方法和手段。其结果,此种证据收集制度一方面显示了一定的合理性。但另一方面,其不合理之处在实际运行中也表现得十分明显,其中最为突出的就是:对于当事人而言,由于没有取证规则的限制而容易滥用取证权,或者由于缺乏取证规则的程序保障其取证权又难以实现;对于法官而言,新取证制度的纳入,使其从“跑腿者”演变为“坐堂者”,因而他们往往只顾法律形式而不甚关注案件实质,或者滥用法律赋予他们的裁量权,随意决定取证与否。很明显,这种取证制度为“两不是”:既不是传统的法官职权取证模式,也不是现代的当事人主义取证模式。换言之,证据收集制度的改革存在很多问题,在实践中突出地表现为“取证难”和“取证乱”。它既给程序公正的实现造成了障碍,也给实质公正的实现造成了障碍。这就决定了本文的研究价值。7.运用了构建和谐社会的理论和司法公正、诉讼效率、程序保障、当事人程序主体性原则等理念来指导民事证据收集规则的设计。首先,按照现行取证制度,当事人虽然享有取证权,但这种取证权的运行既无规则约束,更无规则保障,因而导致司法实践中一方面出现大量的伪证现象、非法取证现象,另一方面又出现大量的证人拒证、证据持有人拒绝提供证据、对方当事人拒绝作出真实陈述等消极现象。显然,这些消极现象会妨害诉讼秩序,影响社会和谐,也会给司法公正、诉讼效率等价值造成伤害。因而对当事人取证权的运行,既要创设规则予以规范,也要创设规则予以保障。其次,司法解释对法院的取证范围严加限制,使法院的调查取证权力近乎被取消,这未必符合立法者的根本动机。条文上对法院取证权的明确萎缩,再加上办案经费和人员的限制,法院越来越不愿意去实地和人民群众中调查取证,越来越偏向“坐堂问案”。法官获取处理案件所需的证据材料,基本上是通过庭前的当事人证据交换或庭审中的法庭调查而由当事人提交的证据材料。法院这种获取证据的方法虽然在形式上有利于保障当事人的程序主体地位和程序公正,但却很可能脱离实际,无顾事实真相,特别是不利于对弱者的保护。其结果是,一方面有的当事人不停地申诉、上访,另一方面弱者会变得更弱。很明显,这与建设和谐社会极不相谐。故此,有些案件不能过分强调程序公正而更应关注实体公正。换言之,为确保实体公正,促进和谐社会建设,法院调查取证的范围较之司法解释的界定宜适当扩大。8.较早以博士论文形式对民事证据收集制度从理论到实践展开了较为全面、深入的研究。学界对民事证据收集问题的研究虽已取得一定成果,其中也有一些力作甚至经典之作,但这些成果都是一般的学术论文,或者是案例集成。它们有的学术性强,但研究所及未必全面;有的实践性强,但理论性则有所欠缺。换言之,已有的研究大多停留在某一个或某几个方面,特别是对其作全面系统且理论联系实际并为民事证据收集制度之完善提供立法建议稿的研究的博士论文和学术专著,至少到目前为止笔者尚未见到。因此,本文就形式而言,也具有创新性。全文在体系安排上共设八章,总体上沿着提出问题→分析问题→解决问题的基本思路展开。其中,第一章对我国民事证据收集制度的现状从立法现状、理论研究现状和司法实践现状三个方面进行了调研或介绍和评析,提出了民事诉讼中的证据收集,作为诉讼证明之流水线的发轫地,无论是在立法还是在理论研究抑或司法实践中,其受重视的程度都不能与其基础地位相匹配,故其现状都难令人满意的命题。第二章对民事证据收集现状的形成原因进行了分析,第三章讨论了民事证据收集的主体,第四章讨论了证据收集的对象和客体,第五章有选择地介绍了有关国家和我国台湾以及我国现行法律关于民事证据收集的方法和程序,第六章对民事证据收集制度的法理进行了探讨,第七章提出了重构我国民事证据收集制度的应然模式并对其立法理由进行了分析。第八章是对前述各章尤其是第七章的主要观点、思想进行凝练,力图以法律条文的形式较为全面、系统地对我国民事证据收集制度从通则到细则进行构建。本文以民事诉讼中的证据收集问题为研究对象,切入点是我国民事诉讼证据收集制度的现状。问题切入后,通过对民事诉讼证据收集制度现状的成因和证据收集的历史、主体、对象与客体、方法与程序、法理等问题的分析和考察,逐步走向本文的研究目标——为建立健全我国民事诉讼之证据收集制度提出立法建议稿。在研究过程中,以当事人及其诉讼代理人收集证据为主视角,以法院、检察院调查收集证据为从视角;以确保当事人及其诉讼代理人取证权的实现(进而确保当事人证明权的实现)为主目的,以规范法院、检察院取证行为,防止其滥用权力为次目的。总之,通过本文的研究,要解决为什么要建立健全民事证据收集制度、建立健全什么样的民事证据收集制度、怎样建立健全民事证据收集制度等问题,从而为立法机关制定取证规则建言献策。更多还原

【Abstract】 Evidence-collecting system is an antique but novel topic. It has existed since lawsuit had becomed a way to settle social disputes. Different lawsuit mode has different evidence-collecting system. Aiming at the various limitations and malpractices of our current evidence-collecting system, its running in practice and research in theory, this paper expects to break through and innovate as following:1. This paper firstly brings forward a better advice draft of evidence-collecting system in civil procedure. It is composed of 62 articles which includes general rules of civil evidence-collecting, rules for parties and their agent ad litems to collect evidence, rules for courts and procuratorates, rules to safeguard parties’ and their agent ad litems’ rights of evidence-collecting, and rules for law obligations.2. This paper redefines the basic principias and requisites for evidence-collecting in civil procedure. It puts out some basic principias that civil evidence-collecting should follow, including principias of litigants’ leading role with courts’ and procuratorates’ assistance, the equality and honesty, necessary collecting, and the cooperation with assistance. Meanwhile, some basic requests, as to legality, timely binding, carefulness and focus on the merits, should be followed.3. This paper examines the characteristic and objective of civil evidence-collecting. As to the characteristic, it is regarded as a right but not a power in theory. This part refers that it should be mandatory by means of the judicial power for parties and their agent ad litems to collect evidence, in order to change the evidence-collecting from the unitary right to a mixed component with right and power. The objectives of the bodies hereof are classified as the direct and ultimate objective. The direct one is to discover the truth out of cases, and the ultimate one is to guarantee parties’ certain specific benefits.4. This paper perfects the means of evidence-collecting and its procedural safeguard rules for parties and their agent ad litems. The methods and proceedings hereof are substantial in the civil evidence-collecting system. Other countries and Chinese Taiwan region stipulate clearly that litigants have right to collect evidence widely with safeguarded methods and procedural rules. By reference to experiences abroad, this part designs the measures hereof and its procedural safeguard rules for parties, and the "Legal Attest Letter" by referrence to that in Taiwan region should be reestablished in our country.5. This part concludes that the courts should standardize themselves when they investigate and collect evidences and the field to cases that courts may collect evidence should be enlarged within measure. Basing on this, this part re-defines the field to cases for courts to investigate and collect evidence. According to present laws in our country, collecting bodies include litigants, agent ad litems, courts and procuratorates. In the future, by the reform of power distribution in collecting evidence, mainly the litigants and their agent ad litems should carry out its task. There is no any nation canceling court’s power of collecting evidence completely, which is unsuitable with Chinese practice. However, acts by courts should be regulated. Meanwhile, the distribution of power in collecting evidence can not be absolutely but relatively resonable. It is not preferential that the procedural justice is more superieor than the substantial justice in cases, which whilst is not the ideal target Chinese judicial justice tries to pursue. Thus, the courts’ categories in investigating should be enlarged in some degree.6. This paper makes clear the actualities of the civil evidence-collecting system in our country and finds out its "sticking point". The Code of Civil Prrocedure in 1991 and the related judicatory interpretations afterward established the mode that evidence-collecting in civil procedure is mainly performed by the parties and assisted by judges, but without any means and measures for parties. As a result, on the one hand, the current civil evidence-collecting system shows definite rationalities, but on the other hand, also displays many distinct irrationalities in practice. Meanwhile, "the difficulties of evidence-collecting" and "the randoms and chaoses of evidnce-collecting" are the extrusive problems in practice. These problems harm the realization of judicatory justice.7. This paper designs rules of evidence-collecting in civil procedure according to the theory of "constructing harmonious society" and the ideas of judicatory justice, litigation efficiency, procedural safeguard, the principle of parties as the subject in civil procedure and so on. Firstly, according to the current evidence-collecting system, parties have the right to collect evidence, which is lack of rules to inhibit and guarantee in their running. This results negatively in provided perjury, illegal evidence-collecting, attestor to reject witness and so on, which are able to harm litigation orders, to impact social harmony, to injure judicatory jutice and litigation efficiency. Thus, necessary rules should be built up to standardize and safeguard the running of parties’ collecting evidence. Secondly, judicatory interpretations strictly restrict the power of courts to investigate and collect evidence. This makes the power of couts approximately be abolished. It unnecessarily accord with legislator’s fundamental motivation. Basing on this, courts are more and more unwilling to investigate and collect evidence from the spots which cases taked place and crowds, more and more leaning to evidences that are provided by parties and their agent ad litems. This is in favor of safeguarding parties’ status as procedural subject and procedural justice formally, but for revealing the truth out of cases, especially for safeguarding the feebles’ interest. As a result, some parties ceaselessly appeal to higher authorities for additional help. It distinctly does not accord with the needs to construct harmonious society. In order to safeguard substantial justice and advance to construct harmonious society, the categories for courts to investigate and collect evidence should be enlarged.8. This doctoral paper examines the evidence-collecting system in civil procedure in our country from theory to practice in the first place. The research is more complete and thorough than other similar research. In theory, the past research as to evidence-collecting in civil procedure are generic science papers or case integrations, among which some have strong technicality but incompletion, some with features in strong practice but for the obvious shortcoming in technicality. This paper strives to overcome above-mentioned shortcomings with innovation formally.On system arrangement, this paper consists of eight chapters. Beginning with putting out questions, it gives analysis and then solutions to them as well. Meanwhile, in Chapter One, it introduces and gives comments and analysis to our country’s evidence-collecting system from the following three aspects: present situation of legislation, theory research and justice practice, putting out the argument that as the origin of evidence in civil procedure cases, considering from the above three aspects, the degree of a evidence-collecting is unmatchable with its basic status, and its present situation is unsatisfied. In Chapter Two, this paper gives an analysis about the present situation of our country’s evidence-collecting and the formed reasons. In Chapter Three, this paper discuses the subject of civil evidence-collecting system. In Chapter Four, this paper discusses the object of evidence-collecting. In Chapter Five, this paper introduces electively about the method and procedure in civil evidence-collecting in the current laws over the countries with Two different Law Systems and Chinese Taiwan. In Chapter Six, this paper makes a research in the principle of law on the evidence-collecting system. In Chapter Seven, this paper makes a suggestion about the perfecter mode of civil evidence-collecting system and its lawmaking reasons in our country. In Chapter Eight, this paper makes a brief summary about the above chapters, especially chapter Seven, trying to reframe the forms of law thoroughly and systematically, from its general rules to the details. In logic, Chapter One is subject to the mode of "putting out questions", Chapter Two to Seven subject to "giving analysis" and Chapter Eight subject to "giving solutions".The research objective of this paper is the questions of evidence-collecting in civil procedure. Its cutting-in point is the actualities of the evidence-collecting system in our country. Subsequently, this paper analyzes the cause of formation of the actualities, and reviews the history, subjects, objects, method and procedure, as well as law principles of evidence-collecting system in civil procedure. Finally, the research aiming at providing an advice draft for perfecting the evidence-collecting system in our country is put forward. The main angle of view of this paper is set on the face that parties and their agent ad litems collect evidence and the subordinate angle laid on the face that the courts and procuratorates collect evidence. Its main target is to insure parties and their agent ad litems can carry out evidence-collecting, its subordinate target is to standardize the behaviors of the courts and procuratorates when they collect evidence and prevent them from abusing their power.更多还原