摘要： 实践中存在为数不少的监察和公安司法机关管辖不规范问题,被监察对象、犯罪嫌疑人和被告人等提出管辖异议也是较为常见的现象。但是除《庭前会议规程》以外,立法和司法解释中均没有赋予被追诉人的管辖异议权。从实证现状来看,无论是在监察调查还是刑事诉讼中,被追诉人及其辩护律师提出的管辖异议并未受到重视,更多地体现为一种虚置状态。监察调查与刑事诉讼中管辖异议制度的缺失既违背了程序公正的基本要求,侵犯了被监察调查对象与犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的诸多权利,也会导致社会公众难以接受裁判结果等诸多弊端。立法以及司法解释中应该赋予被监察调查对象、犯罪嫌疑人和被告人等当事人的管辖异议权;明确规定提出管辖异议的主体、期间以及方式;审查管辖异议的机关和管辖异议成立应承担的程序性法律后果须区别对待;进一步明确和限定《监察法》《刑事诉讼法》以及司法解释中关于监察和公安司法机关管辖裁量权的规定。

关键词: 管辖异议, 制度缺失, 程序法定, 管辖裁量权

Abstract: In practice, there are quite a few irregularities in jurisdiction among supervisory organs and public security judicial organs, and it is also relatively common for subjects of supervision, criminal suspects, and defendants to raise jurisdictional objections.However, except for the Pre-Trial Conference Regulations, neither the legislation nor the judicial interpretations give the prosecuted person the right to object to jurisdiction.Judging from the empirical status quo, whether in supervision investigations or criminal procedures, the jurisdictional objections raised by the prosecuted persons and their attorneys have not been taken seriously, and are more embodied in a state of fiction.The lack of jurisdictional objection systems in supervisory investigations and criminal procedures not only violates the basic requirements of procedural fairness, infringes on many rights of the subjects of supervisory investigation, criminal suspects, and defendants, but also leads to many drawbacks such as the public's difficulty in accepting the results of adjudications.Legislation and judicial interpretations should give parties such as subjects of supervisory investigation, criminal suspects, and defendants the right to object to jurisdiction; clearly stipulate the subjects, periods, and methods for raising jurisdictional objections; the organs reviewing jurisdictional objections and the procedural legal consequences that should be borne by the establishment of jurisdictional objections must be treated differently; and further clarify and limit the provisions of the Supervision Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, and the judicial interpretations on the jurisdictional discretion of supervisory organs and public security judicial organs.

Key words: Objection to Jurisdiction, Lack of System, Legal Procedure, Jurisdictional Discretion