[ 張紐約 ]——(2005-6-22) / 已閱63195次
《我國的民事訴訟證據(jù)制度問題》
張紐約（中南財經(jīng)政法大學(xué)）
摘要
證據(jù)是正義的基礎(chǔ)。人們常說“打官司就是打證據(jù)”，可見證據(jù)在當(dāng)代訴訟中的重要地位。廣義上的民事訴訟證據(jù)制度是指規(guī)定證據(jù)、證據(jù)收集、審查判斷證據(jù)及如何運用證據(jù)證明案件事實的法律規(guī)范的總稱；狹義上則僅指民事訴訟證據(jù)制度類型。人類歷史上，證據(jù)制度經(jīng)歷了從神示證據(jù)制度到法定證據(jù)制度，再到自由心證的證據(jù)制度的發(fā)展過程。神示證據(jù)制度因其的不理性和野蠻性而被歷史所淘汰，而法定證據(jù)制度也因其的過分僵化和機械性而被自由心證的證據(jù)制度所取代。自由心證原則經(jīng)歷了傳統(tǒng)自由心證和現(xiàn)代自由心證兩種形態(tài)。傳統(tǒng)自由心證由于其的過分強調(diào)法官自由裁量，不加任何形式的限制，而易導(dǎo)致司法的任意性。20世紀30年代后，針對傳統(tǒng)自由心證的不足，各國開始對自由心證的證據(jù)制度進行改造，引進證據(jù)規(guī)則，對法官司法裁量權(quán)予以必要的限制，以保障法官心證的客觀性，實現(xiàn)司法公正，從而確立了現(xiàn)代自由心證的原則。
長期以來，我國受原蘇聯(lián)及東歐社會主義國家哲學(xué)思想、政治主張的影響，而實行“實事求是”的證據(jù)制度。要求法官審查判斷證據(jù)必須以“實事求是”為原則，以“客觀真實”為標準，強調(diào)法官判案必須以案件的客觀真實為依據(jù)，賦予法官極大的審查判斷權(quán)。這種過分追求“客觀真實”的訴訟證明要求，實際上是不符合我國的訴訟實際的，在本質(zhì)上也是違背馬克思主義哲學(xué)認識論的認識規(guī)律的。
為建立符合我國訴訟實際的中國特色的證據(jù)制度，首先我們應(yīng)該改變原來的訴訟理念，明確法官調(diào)查取證的案件事實是發(fā)生在過去的事實，它是不可能完整地重現(xiàn)于法庭之上的。而法官對案件事實的審查判斷通常都是通過自身的經(jīng)驗和推理而作出的，在實踐中也是很難做到100％查明案件事實的程度的。所以我們應(yīng)從追求“客觀真實”的證明要求，轉(zhuǎn)向追求“法律真實”的證明要求，改變原來的一元化證明標準，確立“高度蓋然性”的民事訴訟證明標準，并以“客觀真實”作為我們訴訟的終極目標。其次要改變舊的法官審查判斷證據(jù)的原則和標準，確立具有中國特色的“法官依法獨立審查判斷證據(jù)”的原則和“法律真實”的標準，承認法官心證的合理性和合法性，保障法官心證自由。
在新一輪的司法改革中，改革和完善民事訴訟證據(jù)制度已成為制約我國司法改革能否成功的關(guān)鍵。對于民事訴訟證據(jù)制度中存在的問題，我們應(yīng)深入地研究，提出各種切實可行的解決辦法。比如倡導(dǎo)制定一部統(tǒng)一的證據(jù)法典，完善我國證據(jù)規(guī)則；提倡法官心證的自由與客觀，保持法官中立，實現(xiàn)司法公正。
關(guān)鍵詞
證據(jù)制度 自由心證 “實事求是”的證據(jù)制度 法律真實 法官心證 高度蓋然性
ABSTRACT
Evidence is the basic of justice. People often say, "Going to court is to make evidence ", and it is obvious that the important status of evidence in the contemporary lawsuit. Civil action evidence system of broad sense means the legal norm of stipulating evidence, evidence collecting, evidence checking and judging and how to use evidence to prove the case fact; and the narrow sense only means the evidence system type of civil action. In the history of mankind, the evidence system has been gone through from evidence system of prophesy to system of legal evidence, and then reaches the evidence system of judicial discretion. The evidence system of prophesy is eliminated by history, because it is not rational and barbarous. And the system of legal evidence is replaced by the evidence system of judicial discretion, because it is too rigid and machinery. Judicial discretion has gone through two kinds of shapes of the traditional judicial discretion and modern judicial discretion. Traditional judicial discretion because of their excessive to put emphasis on judge's cutting out amount freely, and without any restriction, and it apt to cause administration of justice wanton. After 1930s, because of the weak point of the traditional judicial discretion, various countries began to carry on the transformation to the traditional judicial discretion, introduce the evidence rule, give the essential restriction to the right of cutting out amount of judge's administration of justice, in order to ensure the objectivity of judge's heart card, realizes the justice, thus established the principle of the modern judicial discretion.
For a long time, our country receives original Soviet Union and socialist state of Eastern Europe’s philosophy thought and political opinion, and implements the evidence system of " seeking truth from facts ". It requires taking" seeking truth from facts " as the principle when the judge is checking and judging the evidence, and taking " objective and true "as the standard, emphasizing a judge must take the objective and true of the case as a basis to decide a case, give judge great judging right. The prove requiring of pursuing " objective and true " lawsuit excessively, is not according with the real lawsuit of our country and Marxist philosophy of epistemology in essence.
In order to set up the evidence system which accords with the distinct Chinese characteristics with real lawsuit of our country, we should change the original lawsuit idea, define the case fact that a judge investigates and collects evidence is taking place in the past at first, it is impossible to reappear in the court completely. Judging the fact of case that is made by judge with his experience and reasoning, and it is very difficult to accomplish 100% degree of finding out the fact of case in practice. So we should from pursuing " objective and true " identification require, to pursue identification that " law is true " require, change the original prove standard of one unified, establish civil action of " high probability " prove standard, and regard it as the ultimate goal of our lawsuit with " objective and true ". Second, we should change the old principle and standard of judging and examining evidence, establish the principle of " the judge examines and judges the evidence independently in accordance with the law " with characteristic of Chinese and standard that " the law is true ", acknowledge the rationality and legitimacy of judge's heart card, ensure judge's heart to be free.
Among judicial reform of new round, that reforming and perfecting civil action evidence system is the key to success administration of justice of our country already. To the questions existing in the evidence system of the civil action, we should study deeply, put forward various kinds of feasible solutions. For example, advocate making a unified evidence code, perfect the rule of evidence of our country; recommend judge’s heart to be free and objective, keep judge's neutrality, realize the justice.
KEY WORD
evidence system judicial discretion evidence system of " seeking truth from facts " law is true judge's heart card high probability
目錄
一、證據(jù)制度的概念及歷史發(fā)展
（一）概念
（二）證據(jù)制度的歷史發(fā)展及比較
1、神示證據(jù)制度
2、法定證據(jù)制度
3、自由心證的證據(jù)制度
（1）傳統(tǒng)自由心證
（2）現(xiàn)代自由心證
（3）二者的聯(lián)系與區(qū)別
4、證據(jù)制度類型的比較
（1）神示證據(jù)制度與法定證據(jù)制度及自由心證的證據(jù)制度的比較
（2）法定證據(jù)制度與自由心證的證據(jù)制度的比較
二、中國特色的證據(jù)制度
（一）新中國證據(jù)制度的發(fā)展
1、發(fā)展歷程
2、實事求是的證據(jù)制度
（二）客觀真實與法律真實的證明要求
1、客觀真實的證明要求
總共4頁 1 [2] [3] [4]
下一頁
