Print

Mail

wiki links

Committee must follow procedure to be effective

The most often criticized aspects of the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (三一九槍擊事件真調會條例) are the committee's formation based on proportional party representation in the legislature and its failure to protect basic human rights as stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法).

Although the statute emphasizes that "the committee must consist of 17 members drawn from outside the legislature or any other government agencies," this design further highlights its political nature. The committee simply has too many members. It is very doubtful that a committee that large will be able to operate efficiently.

Second, a member can begin an investigation if his or her proposal is reviewed and agreed upon by just four other members. This design may create big problems during the committee's operations.

Additionally, since members are recommended by political parties, some of them may be swayed by the pan-blue or pan-green camps during the investigation. It is very doubtful that the committee will be able to achieve a result acceptable to both sides.

The committee's investigative procedures should also be in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 8 of the special committee statute states that "the Committee, in the execution of its powers, is not limited by the Code of Criminal Procedure or other laws." Is it then a mechanism of political investigation, of judicial prosecution or a little bit of both? Its status is indeed questionable.

If the committee wants to play the role of a judicial mechanism and define itself as an "independent prosecutor," its exclusion of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a clear violation of the protection of defendants' human rights during criminal prosecution. These basic rights are ensured by the nation's legal system. Will an investigation outcome that is not in accordance with procedural justice truly convince us?

Will constant procedural disputes in the future damage our quest for the truth? And will this bad precedent encourage legislators to set up other new committees beyond the scope of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute people, in violation of our fundamental freedoms? These questions deserve careful consideration.

The committee's investigation must itself respect both judiciary and procedural justice. But the committee violates the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution, and its operation will be very difficult.

According to opinion poll results published by the Taiwan Thinktank in August, although about 48 percent of respondents support the creation of a truth investigation committee, about 66 percent of them oppose the committee membership being based on parties' proportion of legislative seats.

It is thus evident that people do long for the social reconciliation that can only be found by determining the truth of the assassination attempt on the president and vice president. But we also hope that an investigation will be implemented in a fair, just and open way -- rather than simply becoming a microcosm of the struggles among parties in the Legislative Yuan.

The truth can only be obtained through a strict and professional investigation that respects both judicial and procedural justice. And only a result obtained in this manner will be accepted by the entire public.

Kao Yung-cheng is the executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation. Tseng Chien-yuan is the vice director of the department of legal and constitutional study at the Taiwan Thinktank.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
This story has been viewed 2017 times.