Recent events have made the Control Yuan a focus of attention. The government watchdog did not pass a motion to impeach Prosecutor-General Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明) when it was first proposed, but did so the second time, following a wave of criticism from various quarters.
The Control Yuan then called on Chen’s immediate superiors to promptly carry out the impeachment, but he resigned before they could do so.
Also last month, the Control Yuan endorsed a report on an investigation headed by its Control Yuan members Fuldien Li (李復甸) and Shen Mei-chen (沈美真) that found that the Judicial Yuan failed to uphold the public’s constitutional right to institute legal proceedings.
The report said that the Judicial Yuan allowed the high courts to misuse Article 361, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) to refuse a defendant’s right to appeal on the pretext that their applications did not present specific grounds. Perhaps the issue is not as eye-catching or dramatic as the prosecutor-general’s impeachment, but it is at least as important, if not more so, in its implications for the ordinary citizen.
Nearly three years ago, the Judicial Yuan proposed an amendment to Article 361 that would require judicial appeals by prosecutors or defendants to be accompanied by “specific grounds.”
The stated purpose of the proposal was to stop litigation getting bogged down by unreasonable appeals. Legislators and representatives of the Ministry of Justice said they were not opposed to amending the law, but they questioned whether some judges might arbitrarily reject appeals.
Answering a question from a legislator, the director-general of the Judicial Yuan’s Criminal Department said that, because people did not always have lawyers representing them, judges would review such cases only as a matter of course and that the requirement to submit “specific grounds” for appeal in written form was more a matter of educational guidance than anything else.
This exchange gives the impression that the purpose of amending the article in question was to prompt appellants to provide grounds for their appeals as early as possible, and that, in consideration of the fact that most defendants have no lawyer, their appeals would not be arbitrarily rejected in cases where no specific grounds were included.
The amendment passed and came into effect in July 2007. Statistics from the Judicial Yuan show that the number of appeals rejected as unlawful averaged less than 200 per year between 1999 and 2007, but the number shot up to 3,470 in 2008 and 4,924 for the first 11 months of last year. The 2009 figure accounts for one quarter of all legal cases that were wound up in the same period.
The number of appeals rejected on these grounds soared to 25 times the earlier figure. It is also significant that 95 percent of defendants in these cases did not, or could not afford to, appoint a lawyer.
The authors of the Control Yuan investigative report said the practical result of the amendment has been that the right to appeal has been excessively curtailed.
They concluded that this may contravene the principle of legal equality enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution, the right to due process stated in Article 8, the principle of proportionality upheld by Article 23, and Article 16’s protection of the right to institute proceedings. The report calls on the Judicial Yuan to review the matter and apply to the Constitutional Court for an interpretation.
When originally proposed, the Judicial Yuan claimed the amendment was necessary to stop some appellants from abusing the judicial process. The facts, however, indicate that judges have used the new regulations to weed out certain cases.
As soon as this mechanism was set in motion, great numbers of cases were simply wiped off the board and the vast majority of people who have been denied leave to appeal are those who do not have the assistance of a lawyer.
How can it be called justice when officialdom treats the underprivileged like this?
The Judicial Reform Foundation (民間司法改革基金會) has complained to the Judicial Yuan both publicly and privately, but the answer on each occasion has been that the Supreme Court also supports the way the high courts have been handling such cases.
Bureaucrats back one another up, just as they always have. Finally, we were forced to petition the Control Yuan to investigate the matter.
Saying one thing but doing another, the Judicial Yuan has acted like a gang of fraudsters. How can a judiciary that does not keep its word be expected to uphold people’s right to due process?
How can the Judicial Yuan have the nerve to declare that the judiciary serves the public?
The amendment was a scam, but what can we do about it?
Lin Feng-jeng is a lawyer and executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS