Editorial: Scripting a dramatic inauguration

The May 20 presidential inauguration is apparently becoming the nation's next political battleground. While it is not surprising that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) will not be attending the event, the PFP's talk of seeking an injunction against the inauguration has sparked another round of debate.

Interestingly, presidential spokesman James Huang's (黃志芳) response to PFP talk of an injunction was that the Presidential Office is glad to see the PFP and KMT returning to the existing legal system for resolution of their disputes. That statement is apt in some regards -- since seeking the injunction by itself does not involve the kind of violence, bloodshed and turbulence associated with last Saturday's street rally.

However, the actual issuance of such an injunction would definitely be inadvisable from the practical and political perspectives, and would have a weak legal basis.

According to the Constitution, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Recall Law (總統副總統選舉罷免法) and the election results announced by the Central Election Commission, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) have been re-elected and should be inaugurated into their offices on May 20.

In particular, the law's Article 106 provides that upon a final court verdict overturning the election result, the original election winners will be relieved of their duties as of the date of the verdict. The law's Article 107 states that such a subsequent verdict overturning election results does not have any impact on the original election winner's performance of duties after the inauguration and before this verdict. These articles indicate that the existing law specifically provides for situations in which election win

ners are inaugurated with lawsuits seeking to overturn their victory still pending in the court.

In view of the criteria for the courts' issuance of injunctions, the PFP is unlikely to prevail anyway. One important criterion is whether there is an urgent need to prevent major harm or injury through such an injunction. Frankly speaking, one can hardly think of any harm or injury that could come from Chen's inauguration, while one can think of many that would result from an injunction against his inauguration.

Such potential harm would not only weigh heavily against such an injunction's issuance, but would also provide evidence of PFP irresponsibility in seeking the injunction.

If Chen and Lu are prohibited from taking office on May 20, what will happen to this country? The social chaos and panic are easy to imagine.

Citing the example of South Korea, where the congressional speaker is serving as acting president before courts ruled on the impeachment of President Roh Moo-hyun, the PFP is speaking about having Legislative Yuan Speaker and KMT Vice Chairman Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) perform the duties of the president -- but that is completely unconstitutional. According to Article 50 of the Constitution, the premier should act for the president in the event that the president and the vice president cannot assume their offices.

Instead, the example of South Korea should serve as a warning for the PFP and the KMT. In last Thursday's Korean congressional elections, which were perceived by many as a referendum on the impeachment of Roh by the Grand National Party, the pro-Roh Uri Party captured a surprising legislative majority for the first time, suggesting that the majority of South Koreans disapproves of the chaos and restlessness sparked by the impeachment.

If the PFP and KMT continue this charade, ignoring the people's wish for peace and stability, they will pay a hefty price in future elections.