The Constitutional Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the 319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (
It is not a far stretch to say that had the ruling been out just a couple of days before Dec. 11, the outcome of the extremely close legislative election race might have turned out different. This is, of course, all for the better, since now there is no reason for the pan-blue camp to accuse the Constitutional Court of succumbing to political pressure.
While the court's ruling did not find the 319 Statute illegal per se, it did find many, if not all, of the powers vested in the Truth Committee to be unconstitutional. In fact, it is probably fair to say the sting has been rightfully taken out of the Truth Committee, putting the power to investigate the March 19 shooting back into the hands of police and prosecutors -- a practice spelled out in the Constitution.
Of the provisions ruled to be unconstitutional, especially noteworthy are Articles 8 and 13, under which the Truth Committee was given not only the power of prosecutors but also an exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation. In fact, according to the said statute, prosecutors can only prosecute criminals under the direction of the Truth Committee.
It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the court found these provisions unconstitutional, as because they violated checks and balances on government powers -- particularly against the legislative branch -- since the power to investigate and prosecute criminal activity falls under the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.
Under the circumstances, it is indeed ironic that the Truth Committee on Monday issued a press release demanding that police hand over the investigation into the March 19 shooting based on Article 8 of the 319 Statute. Since it is not a secret that some members of the Truth Committee had long admitted the constitutional "flaw" of the article, one cannot help but wonder what could possibly be on the minds of the committee members in demanding to exercise an unconstitutional vested power. It is especially unforgivable given that the committee is supposedly comprised of members of the legal profession.
The court also found Article 13 of the Truth Committee Statute unconstitutional on the grounds that facts gathered by the Truth Committee may differ from those brought to the attention of the courts, and thus be grounds for a retrial should anyone be charged under the 319 Statute.
According to the Constitutional Court, its finding was based on the principle of equal protection of the law and that the committee's power exceeds the scope of legislature's investigative powers. Actually, a better way to put it is that the provision flat-out tramples on the power of the judiciary. It would be unthinkable if the Constitutional Court actually accepted such an incursion on judicial power.
In a nutshell, as pointed out by the Constitutional Court, no one denies that the Legislative Yuan has some measure of investigative power, but it should be limited. While the ruling does offer some insight on the nature of such powers, it failed to define their limitations -- which should come in handy in the backdrop of a continued pan blue legislative majority.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS