作者：董坤
作者介绍：中国社会科学院法学研究所研究员，中国社会科学院大学法学院教授
出版日期：2025年10月9日
内容提要 制度史研究表明，创设机动侦查权旨在应对个案侦办中的特殊情形，但早期因受条文规定模糊、利益驱动与绩效考核影响，该权力曾被滥用，以致立法不断限缩其适用范围，严格启动与审批程序。法理上，“法律监督说”为机动侦查权行使奠定了正当性基础，但对权力的个案适用、严格限制及“谦抑”现状解释力不足。“裁定管辖说”对此作出补充，其比照审判管辖，将立案管辖分为法定管辖与裁定管辖。机动侦查权本质上是一种附严格法律条件的个案侦查管辖权的转移，属裁定管辖，是管辖中的例外，故应“稳慎适用”。机动侦查权的程序设计应兼顾历史、法理及实践三重逻辑，从社会影响、案件类型、刑罚幅度划定“重大犯罪案件”范围，总结公安机关不愿或不宜管辖的“需要由人民检察院直接受理”的情形，细化“经省级以上人民检察院决定”中线索发现、调查核实及“漏人”“漏案”的审批程序，完善沟通协商、立案通报和证据移交的配套衔接机制。
关键词 检察侦查 机动侦查权 法律监督说 裁定管辖说 程序设计
Abstract: Institutional history studies reveal that the establishment of flexible investigative power aimed to address exceptional circumstances in individual case investigations. However, due to early vague statutory provisions, profit-driven motives, and performance evaluation influence, this authority was once abused, prompting legislative restrictions on its scope of application and stricter activation and approval procedures. Theoretically, the ‘doctrine of legal supervision’ justifies exercising flexible investigative power, yet demonstrates limited explanatory capacity regarding its case-specific application, stringent constraints, and inherent self-restraint characteristics. The ‘doctrine of adjudicative jurisdiction’ supplements this framework by analogizing trial jurisdiction principles, categorizing case-filing jurisdiction into statutory jurisdiction and adjudicative jurisdiction. Essentially, flexible investigative power constitutes a transfer of case-specific investigative jurisdiction subject to strict legal conditions, belonging to adjudicative jurisdiction and representing an exceptional mechanism within jurisdictional frameworks, thus warranting ‘prudent application’. Procedural design for flexible investigative power should integrate historical, jurisprudential, and practical considerations: defining the scope of ‘major criminal cases’ through social impact, case typology, and sentencing thresholds; summarizing scenarios where public security organs are ‘unwilling or unsuitable to exercise jurisdiction’ requiring direct acceptance by the people’s procuratorate; refining approval procedures under the ‘decision by the people’s procuratorate at the provincial level or above’ requirement, including clue discovery, investigation verification, and clearance of ‘omitted suspects’ or ‘unreported cases’; while imporving coordinated mechanisms for communication and consultation, case-filing notification, and evidence transfer.