The judicial reform show directed by Judicial Yuan President Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) is peppered with exciting twists and turns. One twist came when the preparatory committee for a National Congress on Judicial Reform resolved that the Council of Grand Justices should hear German-style constitutional complaints (verfassungsbeschwerde), thus turning the Grand Justices into a court of the fourth instance.
This judicial resolution is worrying. The function of the judiciary is to provide fair trials, and for a trial to be fair it needs to be scientific, humane and trustworthy. One essential condition for a fair judiciary is to have speedy trials, because justice delayed is justice denied.
The main problem with the judiciary is not that it lacks fourth-instance courts, but that it suffers from four judicial maladies: judicial corruption, “dinosaur” judgements, interference in trials and trial in the court of public opinion.
However, up to now the preparatory committee has not seriously tackled these issues.
Another problem is that the five highest judicial organs — the Judicial Yuan, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission and the Council of Grand Justices — and their personnel — have not been merged into a single supreme court such as exists in the UK, the US and other advanced nations.
Only by integrating these diverse supreme-trial institutions and merging their staff can the state’s limited resources be used sparingly while achieving the aim of speedy, effective and consistent trials, and genuinely safeguarding human rights. It would also resolve constitutional conflicts between the different state departments.
Unfortunately, the preparatory committee has steered clear of this important issue, instead taking a wrong turn in the direction of a fourth-instance court.
It is much more important to improve the first-instance trial system than to establish a court of the fourth instance. First-instance trials take place relatively soon after the events of a case, making it easier to collect evidence and while witnesses’ memories are still fresh, so in theory a first-instance trial has the greatest possibility of getting close to the truth.
However, Taiwan’s first-instance trial system is riddled with problems, such as excessively young judges, trial by record, secretive trials and trials that are drawn-out and postponed. Resolving these defects will require reforms at the first-instance stage.
Notably, adopting juries and an adversarial system would make first-instance trials fair and help them arrive at correct verdicts, thus making it less likely that cases will go to the second and third instances and be passed back and forth interminably between them.
For the vast majority of people who have won cases, the introduction of a fourth instance could only mean that their cases remain unresolved, while it would offer a tiny minority of those who have lost a case the hope of an appeal, but most of them would not succeed.
The preparatory committee has also resolved that lecturers from colleges of law should serve as part-time judges who would be paid on a case-by-case basis. For outside observers, this is another stupefying decision. The judiciary is always being accused of making “dinosaur” judgements, but instead of getting to the root of the problem by adopting a jury system or selecting judges from among highly experienced and outstanding lawyers, the preparatory committee instead wants to get academics to act as part-time judges.
This is not the right way to get rid of “dinosaur” judgements. It would merely have two species of dinosaurs instead of one, which would turn the Judicial Yuan into Jurassic Park.
Of course judges should be selected in a diverse manner. For example, the jury system employed in the US, the UK and other countries is one way to complement judges and cure the four judicial maladies.
Apart from juries, the US also has a system of elected judges, while the UK has a system of volunteer judges called magistrates. Taiwan could appoint a large number of magistrates — perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 — thus allowing socially experienced people to serve as temporary judges for three-month stints to judge the 90 percent of criminal cases that involve penalties not exceeding one year’s imprisonment.
What Taiwan definitely should not do is enlist law college lecturers to act as judges when they are just as socially inexperienced as the judges the nation already has.
Taiwan’s judicial reforms should refer more to the mature and robust litigation systems of nations like the US and the UK.
The government should not lock itself away and cook up some peculiar system of its own, nor should it copy Japan’s lay judge system or Germany’s constitutional complaint system, which are poor substitutes that were adopted experimentally in the post-World War II years.
Jerry Cheng is a lawyer and founding chairman of the Taiwan Jury Association.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past