更新时间：04-26 （soso）提供原创文章
摘要：20世纪80年代后期开始的民事审判方式改革，对证据收集制度关注较多。理论界对证据收集制度提出了不同的改革方案，但均认为应加强当事人举证责任、改变法官全面包揽证据收集局面、弱化法官在证据收集中的职权。这一思路也在后来的立法中得到了体现。1991年颁布施行的民事诉讼法建立了我国以当事人自行收集证据为主、法官调查取证为辅的证据收集制度。2001年12月《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据若干问题的规定》（以下简称《民诉证据规定》）对法官调查取证的情形进行了限制。但由于法律相关内容规定的过于原则与简单，在实践中如何操作，法官们对此也有不同的认识。如不能及时消除歧义，统一认识，势必制肘民事诉讼的进一步深化改革。民事诉讼过程,就是收集证据、质证和法官认证并做出裁判的过程。证据的调查收集是民事诉讼的核心，法官调查取证有其存在的必要性。法官不是举证的主体，法官调查取证是调查收集证据制度的组成部分，在其中居辅助性地位，是一种司法救济行为。法官只能依申请调查取证，它是当事人举证的手段之一，需要通过质证，效力没有特殊性。法官依申请调查取证应该纳入“审前准备程序”，并赋予当事人充分的陈述权，调查取证的法官和审理案件的法官应该分离。法官调查取证的条件应该适当放宽，依职权和依申请进行的调查取证应该得到明确规制，并有序推进“调查令”制度。
关键词：民事诉讼 证据收集 法官调查取证 当事人举证 调查令
Abstract：The late 20th century, the beginning of 80 Civil Trial, more concerned about the evidence collection system. Evidence collection system theorists have put forward different reform proposals, but all the burden of proof that the parties should be strengthened, taking a comprehensive collection of evidence the court to change the situation, and weaken the Court in terms of evidence collection. Later, this idea is also embodied in legislation. Promulgated in 1991, the Civil Procedure Law of China was established to collect their own evidence-based parties, the court investigation and evidence collection, supplemented by the evidence collection system. December 2001, "Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Civil Evidence"(hereinafter referred to as "rules of evidence are suing"), investigate and collect evidence against the people's court the case was limited. But because the law related to the content of the principles and provisions are too simple, in practice, how the judges have also held a different understanding. If not timely remove ambiguities, common understanding, is bound to further deepen the reform of civil litigation constraints. Civil process is to collect evidence, cross examination and certification of judges and make the referee process. Investigation of evidence collection is the core of civil litigation, the court investigation and evidence collection has its existence. Judges are not the subject of proof, the court investigate and collect evidence for investigation and evidence collection is part of a system in which the status of home helper is a kind of judicial relief act. Application for investigation and evidence collection by the court only, it is one of the parties the means of proof required by cross-examination, the effect is not unique. The court upon application, investigation and evidence collection should be included in "Procedure Before Trial", and give the parties the right to adequate representation, investigation and evidence collection of the judge and the judge hearing the case should be separated. Judge the conditions of investigation and evidence collection should be appropriate to relax, according to mandate and in accordance with an application for the investigation and evidence collection should be clearly regulated and orderly manner “investigation order “system.
Keywords: Civil litigation，Evidence collection，Court investigation and evidence collection，Party proof，Investigation order