Editorial: Chen is a target in Wu trial

On Friday, first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) appeared in the first court hearing for the corruption and forgery case in which she and three top presidential aides have been charged. Despite the fact that Wu had to be rushed to the hospital during the session, her appearance nevertheless served as a demonstration of respect for the judicial system, not to mention as a contrast to all those rich and powerful people who have fled the country or pretended to be in poor health to avoid court.

Wu's attendance conveyed a cooperativeness similar to when President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) consented to speak with prosecutors on two occasions despite presidential immunity.

Of course, whether this cooperation will be deemed beneficial for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will ultimately depend on the outcome of the trial. If Wu and the aides are found guilty of the crimes charged, none of this will make up for the injury suffered by the DPP.

The defense attorneys are disputing the very appropriateness of the trial. The plan is to challenge the constitutionality of the case from a number of standpoints. Above all, there is the issue of how Article 52 of the Constitution affectssthe proceedings.

The article says: "The President shall not, without having been recalled, or relieved of his functions, be liable to criminal prosecution unless he is charged with having committed an act of rebellion or treason."

During his presidency, Chen is immune from criminal prosecution. Perhaps the most controversial and complicated aspect of Wu's case is that if she or the aides were found guilty, the president himself would be implicated at the same time.

In other words it is Chen that is being tried in this case. After all, the acts in question are said by prosecutors to have been committed by Chen and Wu in concert.

In a political sense, Chen is the real defendant. If Wu and the aides are found guilty, it would be difficult for Chen to be found not guilty of the same crimes after his presidency ends.

On the other hand, even if Wu is found not guilty, Chen still faces the likelihood of criminal prosecution over his handling of the "state affairs fund" after his term is up.

In light of all this, is it the intention of the Constitution to indirectly prosecute the president this way before his term formally ends?

This is a question that deserves to be examined closely. If the legislative intent of the Constitution in providing criminal immunity to the president is to prevent obstruction of his presidential functions during his term, is that intent being usurped through the current prosecution?

On the other hand, the president's immunity also has a direct impact on the rights of the defendants in the present case -- namely, Wu and the three aides.

As someone who allegedly played the key role in the acts in question, Chen's testimony would have a serious impact on the ability of the court to hear and review all relevant facts before entering a verdict.

According to the prosecutors, Chen had agreed to be questioned by them twice previously. But will Chen agree to do so again if the court feels that it is necessary?