On Dec. 15, the Council of Grand Justices announced its interpretation of the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (
More important, however, was the grand justices' interpretation of the truth committee's status. It is sure to stir up fresh controversy.
There has already been much debate on the fact that Articles 8 and 13 clearly violate the independent authority of the judiciary and the Executive Yuan.
That they have been found to be unconstitutional has surprised no one. The most significant aspects of the grand justices' interpretation concerned Articles 2, 15 and 16, which deal with the status of the truth committee and who is to sit on it.
According to the Council of Grand Justices, appointments to the truth committee should be confirmed by the Legislative Yuan and approved by the legislative speaker if they are to be deemed constitutional.
In other words, the grand justices are saying that the truth committee is a body appointed by the legislature and coming under its authority, and that the purpose of the truth committee is to carry out the investigative operations of the Legislative Yuan.
The grand justices are clearly approaching the issue of the constitutionality of the truth committee from the angle of the independent authority of the Executive Yuan, the judiciary and the legislature.
They looked at whether or not the power of the legislature was infringing the territory of the other two institutions.
From their interpretation it is apparent that they have failed to supply one clear answer.
They first affirm that the legislature has the authority to make the truth committee statute, but that its specific form actually violates the independent power of the judiciary and Executive Yuan.
Without expressly declaring that the truth committee is unconstitutional, they have returned it to the Legislative Yuan that gave birth to it, asking that the legislature "adopt" it as its own.
In order to solve the constitutional problem that has arisen between these three branches of government, the grand justices have unexpectedly delivered more investigative powers to the legislature, something of a surprise Christmas gift to it.
Grand Justice Hsu Tsung-li (
For him, the methods and goals of the truth committee are akin to those of criminal prosecutors, and it should therefore be characterized as a body under the Executive Yuan.
While the grand justices fell short of directly saying the truth committee was unconstitutional, they have given it the investigative powers of the legislature, while prohibiting it from engaging in criminal investigations.
This frustrates the truth committee, whose intention had been to investigate the March 19 assassination attempt as a criminal case, simultaneously imposing the wishes of individuals who legally have no right to make laws over and above the basic rights and scope of the legislature.
Legislators should think carefully whether this is preferable to having the truth committee declared unconstitutional.
This interpretation has stripped the truth committee of some of its powers, preventing its members from having the same authority as criminal prosecutors.
On the other hand it has allowed the truth committee to transform itself.
Originally a child (albeit a disobedient one) of the Executive Yuan, it has been placed under the guardianship of the legislature and its new guardian now has investigative powers that it has never had under the Constitution.
Doubtless, this was originally done out of respect to legislators.
But as Hsu has said, this way of doing things has the judiciary making laws over the heads of the legislators.
This interpretation is certain to be a precedent that will see the investigative powers of the legislature increase in the future, and create a new constitutional controversy.
Hsu would say the truth committee as a whole is unconstitutional and that even those who support it are not satisfied with the grand justices' interpretation.
Regardless of Minister without Portfolio Hsu Chih-hsiung's (
Despite recognizing the legislature's right to make laws, the council is requiring it to alter the objective and content of a law it made.
This is just like building a house and being told by the Office of Building Standards that it is illegal to do so, and though they don't tell you to tear it down, they say that if you build it elsewhere and in a different style, then it won't be illegal.
Does this really solve the problem?
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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