On Jan. 15 the Council of Grand Justices handed down constitutional interpretation No. 520 regarding the Executive Yuan's decision to scrap the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant
Obviously, the main point at issue, as stated in the Cabinet's application for the interpretation, is the distribution of constitutional powers between the executive and the legislative branches. In a case like this, however, the question of whether the executive has damaged the legislative branch is also at issue. If this were a matter for the US Supreme Court and it found that the executive had indeed damaged the legislative branch, then the executive's decision would of course be held to have been unconstitutional. Yet, in Taiwan, people are still arguing whether the decision was unconstitutional even after the grand justices delivered their ruling.
In the US, there have been a few cases of presidents not put-ting into effect budgets passed by the Congress. Some of the refusals were due to early fulfilment of budget goals, as it would have been wasteful to continue to spend budgeted money. Or the president might choose not to implement a budget with which the executive branch disagreed but could not veto. In the beginning of the 1970s, for example, then president Richard Nixon stalled implementation of a budget he disagreed with, citing avoiding possible inflation and a raise in tax rates as his rationale. Nixon even claimed that the executive branch had the constitutional right not to implement budgets, which later led to conflicts between the executive and legislative branches.
Traditionally, the US Supreme Court has not supported the notion that the president has the right not to implement a budget since the implementation of a passed budget is considered to be a matter of enforcement of the law in the US. It is hard to imagine that the president had the right to stop the law from being enforced.
Besides, according to the ROC Constitution, "The Legislative Yuan shall have the power to decide by resolution upon statutory or budgetary bills." Thus, only the legislative branch, not the executive branch, has the authority to delay or refuse to implement a budget.
Many scholars believe, moreover, that if the president has the power not to implement a passed budget, then this amounts to a presidential budgetary veto. It is easier for the president not to implement a budget than it is for him to proceed in accordance with Article 57 of the ROC Constitution and request the Legislative Yuan reconsider it. Such behavior seriously violates the constitutional design that balances the executive and the legislative authorities. This same warning was made in the grand justices' interpretation.
It is a basic requirement for any democratic country to vest rights over budgets in the legislative branch. Although the executive branch must implement the budget with appropriate flexibility, it must do so under the supervision and participation of the legislature. To achieve this, in 1974 the US Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which stipulates that if the president "delays" or "refuses" to implement a budget, he or she should make an official request to Congress. The executive branch can delay the budget after Congress has been informed of the delay. If Congress, having reviewed the decision, disagrees with it, the executive branch must immediately resume implementation of the budget. On the other hand, where refusals are concerned, the president must make an official request to both the Senate and the House of Representatives within 45 days of the budget being passed. Only after the request has been approved by Congress, does the executive branch have the right not to implement the budget.
Such a system is worth Taiwan studying. I believe the conflicts between the executive and the legislative branches are actually problems of the constitutional design. Thus, the essential issue is how the two branches can effectively constrain each other in order not to destroy the balance between them.
Kuei Hung-cheng is an assistant research fellow at the National Policy Foundation.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs