Print

Mail

wiki links

We should revise our travel ban regulations

On June 11, a "collegiate bench" of the Taipei District Court in charge of the Zanadau Development case approved business tycoon Liu Tai-ying's (劉泰英) appeal against the ban on him leaving the country. Prosecutors were deeply shocked by the decision and have promised to file an interlocutory appeal against it. However, unless prosecutors also file a motion and succeed in suspending the execution of the decision, Liu may be able to leave the country before the court can rule on the interlocutory appeal -- as Article 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) states that "an interlocutory appeal shall not be effective to suspend the execution of a decision."

This decision is reminiscent of several major criminal cases over the past few years, including the high-profile case of Wu Tse-yuan (伍澤元) and that of Lo Fu-chu (羅福助), which generated controversy over the court's agreements to lift the bans on them leaving Taiwan.

Liu's case may not be the last of its kind if we do not seriously face and handle the insufficient legal regulations regarding bans on people leaving the country.

It's astonishing that more than 40,000 people have been barred from leaving the country over the past three years. The agencies which deal with these regulations may be suspected of abusing their power. Over 30,000 of these cases are actually non-judicial, and both their legal bases and causes deserve our attention and review.

In practice, the authorities cite their power (endorsed by the Code of Criminal Procedure) to limit the residence of someone who is standing trial as a legal basis for barring people from leaving the country. But there are still no complete and concrete regulations on the conditions, length and remedies of this limitation.

Take Liu's appeal, for example. On what conditions should the judge decide to approve or overrule it? Should the plaintiff and defendant have a debate in court? Should the ban be temporarily lifted or be lifted with certain deals? What is the legal consequence of violating the court's decision? Should the regulations on such a ban be made exceptional, so that they can only be executed when the decision is confirmed [by an interlocutory appeal result]? Or should an immediate interlocutory appeal system be introduced in an effort to avoid appeals that have no substantial effect?

In fact, it's necessary to build and strengthen the regulations on this ban not only in judicial cases, but also in non-judicial ones, to protect people's freedom of leaving and entering the country.

Considering that Taiwanese people frequently travel abroad on private and business trips, the existing law is seriously insufficient to protect their basic right to travel or do business overseas. Especially when some people have only been informed at customs that they cannot leave the country. This situation is embarrassing and may damage their human dignity.

Perhaps this ban may not damage a person's freedom as much as a detention order. However, statistically speaking, the possibility of a person being barred from leaving the country is much higher than the possibility of being detained, making it a more serious problem. But for people who suffer due to wrong or illegal bans on them leaving the country (eg, those who die because they cannot seek timely medical treatment overseas, those who are unable to attend weddings, funerals and other important events abroad, and those who suffer business losses), they can hardly be granted national compensation. Is this fair? Although this ban is needed in reality, shouldn't it also be restricted?

Lo Ping-cheng is a lawyer and an executive member of the Judicial Reform Foundation.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
This story has been viewed 1931 times.