The Special Investigation Panel’s probe into the alleged collective corruption of High Court judges is a wake-up call to all those in the judicial system who habitually cover up for others.
However welcome such an investigation, the incorruptibility of the judicial system is dependent not on ad hoc investigations, but rather long-term work. With that in mind, we need to review the mechanisms currently in place for investigating corruption cases involving judges.
When prosecutors investigate other prosecutors, they are obviously subject to peer pressure, which in many cases can sway decisions. Only a handful of just and upright individuals unmoved by personal appeals or favors are suitable for such investigations.
Fortunately, the need for judicial reform has strengthened prosecutorial independence and made it clearer that the core values of judges should be fairness, justice and impartiality. This has made the prosecutorial system more independent and pluralistic.
Over the last few years, prosecutors have, on several occasions, taken the initiative in investigating corruption cases involving other prosecutors, but we still need more focused and self-disciplined individuals to deal with their collectivist mindset once and for all.
It is well known that this “unity” often means that individual prosecutors encounter inappropriate obstructions, which can impact their conduct in corruption cases involving the judiciary. It is therefore important that the allocation of duties is just and fair and that it is made institutionally more difficult for prosecutors to cover for each other.
Unfortunately, the Cabinet has removed clauses that long limited prosecutorial “unity” from the current version of the judges act, while once again making prosecutors’ meetings a formal part of the administrative process, which means they will have to abide by the decisions of their superiors.
These are two big steps backward that will harm prosecutorial independence and need to be corrected by legislators during the legislative review process.
If a certain prosecutors’ office is plagued by hypocrisy or weak investigative abilities, prosecutors with questionable integrity in that jurisdiction have little to worry about. The solution to this problem lies in the senior prosecutors’ office establishing an investigative organization to make up for the loopholes that exist in that particular jurisdiction.
In the past, the Black Gold Investigation Center under the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors’ Office and its various special investigative teams served this function and was involved in many corruption cases involving prosecutors and judges.
The Special Investigative Panel under the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office established after the Organic Act of Court Organization (法院組織法) was passed, was headed by the prosecutor-general, who gained democratic legitimacy from being nominated by the president and appointed by the legislature. The question is: How should we respond to corruption within the special investigation panel? That requires strong and independent prosecutors at the first trial, which would allow the establishment of a comprehensive monitoring mechanism.
The Control Yuan recently questioned the appointment of the prosecutor-general by the legislature and the constitutionality of the special investigation panel and expressed a wish to dismantle the entire framework. That must not be allowed.
Many people have discovered that after reviews of wiretapping requests were transferred to the courts, certain judges became cockier than usual and go-betweens in the bribing of prosecutors and judges became more brazen. Prosecutors, however, were frustrated because their ability to carry out effective investigations was diminished.
Although judges are vested with the responsibility to make independent and just decisions, it is perhaps inevitable that there will be times when they waver in their certitude as a result of emotional connections to their peers and a collective sense of self-preservation.
Prosecutors who in normal circumstances are expected to obtain court approval for investigation-related requests find themselves in an awkward position when they investigate judges.
A cursory review of media reports over the years indicates that many corruption cases involving judges have remained unresolved for over a decade. This can be taken as a clear indication that a collective sense of self-preservation exists among judges.
Prosecutors investigating judges and middlemen offering bribes often encounter unreasonable obstacles put in their way by judges.
Prosecutors daring to wiretap or file law-suits against judges have to deal with the emotional reactions of the judge in question, and sometimes such cases are manipulated to turn the two sides against each other so that a generally antagonistic relationship can prevail between courts and prosecutors. As a result, the prosecutorial office in question might encounter problems for years thereafter when applying for warrants or permission to wiretap.
Strengthening judicial independence is of course indispensable when it comes to guaranteeing independent and unbiased judgments. However, this becomes much more of a problem when it comes to corruption cases involving individual judges when the collective self-preservation mechanism can be a serious obstacle to justice. The question is how to overcome it in cases involving individual judges?
The search and arrest warrants for the supreme court judges allegedly involved in the recent corruption case were approved by district court judges. The fact that the judges belong to a different court jurisdiction will hopefully lead to a weakening of the peer pressure felt by judges and perhaps establish a template for the development of a system that supervises the work of judges.
The question now is whether prosecutors should be allowed to demand mandatory punishment in corruption cases involving judges by turning to judges in other jurisdictions or should all such cases be handed over to a single dedicated court of law, an investigative judge, the court president or the presiding judge?
This is something that requires further study to ensure that a solution is devised that preserves the integrity of the legal system.
This case shows that prosecutors and judges are equally important when it comes to upholding judicial independence and honesty. We do not need a judges’ act, what we need is a judicial officials act.
It is of the utmost significance that the current investigation of alleged collective corruption among high court judges by the special investigations panel occurred at a time of major personnel changes in the judiciary. That indicates that there is still hope.
Chen Chi-ming is deputy chief prosecutor of Yunlin District Prosecutors’ Office.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
A delegation of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials led by Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is to travel to China tomorrow for a six-day visit to Jiangsu, Shanghai and Beijing, which might end with a meeting between Cheng and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The trip was announced by Xinhua news agency on Monday last week, which cited China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Director Song Tao (宋濤) as saying that Cheng has repeatedly expressed willingness to visit China, and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and Xi have extended an invitation. Although some people have been speculating about a potential Xi-Cheng
The ongoing Iran conflict is putting Taiwan’s energy fragility on full display — the island of 23 million people, home to the world’s most advanced semiconductor manufacturing, is highly dependent on imported oil and gas, especially that from the Middle East. In 2025, 69.6 percent of Taiwan’s crude oil and 38.7 percent of liquified natural gas were sourced from the Middle East. In the same year, 62 percent of crude oil and 34 percent of LNG to Taiwan went through the Strait of Hormuz. Taiwan’s state-run oil company CPC Corp’s benchmark crude oil price (70 percent Dubai, 30 percent Brent)
RSS