In Constitutional Interpretation 582, the Council of Grand Justices ruled that the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in convicting Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強) on the basis of his accomplices' testimony. This decision has given the death-row inmate a new lease on life.
Immediately after the announcement of the constitutional interpretation, members of the Supreme Court called a press conference to express their displeasure. They questioned the legitimacy of an interpretation made outside of the judicial process and expressed concern that the Grand Justices' power to make such a interpretation may conflict with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said it was inappropriate for the Grand Justices to use new legal perspectives to deny established precedents.
One of the justices agreed. Grand Justice Peng Feng-chih (彭鳳至) put in a dissenting opinion, supporting the Supreme Court's view. She thought that the court did not cite the precedents that the Grand Justices declared unconstitutional and therefore the council should not have accepted the petition for a review of precedents by the Constitutional Tribunal. Grand Justice Peng's view can be summed up by the Confucian saying: "You may love the sacrificial sheep but I love the ritual more."
This case involved conflicts of values on several levels. Most obvious of these is the conflict between the value of legal procedures and the value of substantive rights. In Confucius' saying, the value of the life of the sacrificial sheep is placed second to that of rituals. However, it may not be appropriate to liken a man's life to that of a sheep.
And in Hsu's case, as it is the life of a man that is involved, should the Grand Justices have adhered so strictly to procedure so as to deny a death-row inmate any chance of saving his life? In answering this, one cannot avoid the question of the judicial attitude to human life. If the Grand Justices had rejected the application for a constitutional interpretation, they would be holding the value of procedural law higher than the value of a human life. After all, the law's emphasis on procedural justice is to safeguard human rights, not to create a hinderance to preserve the procedural framework.
Human rights groups have praised the decision by the Grand Justices, acknowledging their respect for an individual's right to life. However, not a single word about one's right to life was mentioned in the interpretation. The interpretation simply maintained that the Supreme Court's decision infringed on a person's right to appeal and the due process of law. That is, although their aim was not to save a life, most Grand Justices safeguarded the right to life by protecting due process in the interpretation. The belief that there cannot be too much procedural protection in order to protect an individual's right to live is perfectly valid.
It is even more thought-provoking that the Supreme Court did not challenge the interpretation on Hsu's right to question his accomplices, but protested the interpretation's use of an amended Criminal Code to overrule a precedent.
The Supreme Court also complained about the Grand Justices' use of a constitutional interpretation to interfere with the court's authority to pass judgments. Their complaint reveals where they place their values.
It is still uncertain whether Hsu will be able to gain a retrial to overturn the Supreme Court's judgment. But what this case has done is to reveal the values of members of the judicial system. For them, a person's right to life is clearly subsidiary to the maintenance of judicial power and the idea of procedural justice.
Nigel Li is an adjunct professor at Soochow University's School of Law.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations