According to Article 52 of the Constitution, the president is not, without having been recalled or having been relieved of his duties, liable to criminal prosecution unless he is charged with having committed an act of rebellion or treason.
This article explains presidential immunity, and since that is a privilege that is given in order to protect the office of the president, not the president as an individual, the president does not have the right to relinquish it. As for the right to immunity itself, that is merely a temporary procedural barrier; once the president steps down, any criminal offense that he or she might have committed during the presidency can still be prosecuted.
However, whether the immunity also precludes searches of the president’s office or summoning the president to testify is not clearly stipulated in the article.
This lack of clarity became more controversial when the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s anti-corruption team searched the president’s office in connection to investigations into the special allowance fund when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was still in office. This forced Chen to file a request for a constitutional interpretation, to which the Council of Grand Justices gave Interpretation No. 627. Pursuant to the intent of this interpretation, although no investigation, prosecution or trial may be commenced against an incumbent president, necessary evidentiary preservation may still be conducted, such as the investigation of a crime scene and inspection of objects.
The problem is that such an investigation could invade the president’s right to maintain secrecy. Hence the Council of Grand Justices explicitly stated that, unless relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) are amended to restrict the search and seizure in places where the president carries out his functions and resides, law enforcement agencies should, in order to protect state secrets, call on the president to willingly produce the evidence. If the president refuses to do so, prosecutors can file a motion with the High Court, which can assemble a special tribunal made up of five judges to decide if a search warrant should be issued.
However, not only does the Council of Grand Justices’ explanation conflict with the Code of Criminal Procedure and give the impression that the justices are superior to lawmakers, it also complicates the procedure, erecting more barriers against investigations into any criminal offenses committed by the president.
As such, regarding the case of illegal political donations in which President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) might be involved, the Special Investigation Division can, if necessary, file an application for a search warrant with the court in order to search the president’s offices, residence and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) offices. It can also summon the president to testify as a witness or a relevant party.
However, the president can still easily reject such searches or summons to testify on the grounds that state secrets are involved. In addition, since the Council of Grand Justices set up such high barriers against issuing a search warrant, the chances that prosecutors will be allowed to search the president’s offices and residence are indeed very slim.
Besides, there is unfortunately also a big question mark as to whether the Special Investigation Division has the wisdom, as well as the courage, to uncover any corruption or criminal offenses committed by the person in power.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS