Before the court heard oral arguments regarding the case of leaked classified information involving former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), I published an article in the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) discussing Ma’s attempt to plead not guilty on the grounds that he had “special presidential executive powers” that absolved him of the offense.
The article pointed out that despite this fallacious argument, which is based on a broad assumption about the Constitution, the court could still acquit him. Now that Ma has indeed been found not guilty, the validity of his argument should be examined more thoroughly.
The indictment document issued by the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office contains details about the political feud between Ma and then-legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) that erupted in September 2013, as proof that Ma had a possible motivation and purpose for abetting the leak of classified information about Wang, who was under investigation at the time for alleged improper use of influence.
However, the political feud alone is not evidence that Ma abetted the leak. Moreover, the motivation and purpose behind an offense cannot be used to convict a defendant. These factors should only be considered when the court is determining the penalty to be meted out, as stipulated by Article 57, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.
The court was right to reject the prosecutors’ assumptions about Ma’s motivations. However, the court made the same mistake when it chose to believe that Ma would abide by the Constitution and honor his status as a former president.
This was an assumption that was clearly based on the judge’s own opinion.
According to the Criminal Code’s definition of abetting a leak of classified information, the abettor must instruct or encourage the leak of specific data.
Ma asked then-prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) to report to then-premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), but there is not enough evidence to prove that he instructed Huang to leak any classified information, as the court has pointed out.
This made convicting Ma difficult. Nevertheless, that Ma made Huang report to Jiang twice, apparently in an attempt to clarify something about the influence peddling case against Wang, creates room for arguing that he did abet the leaking of classified information. If there is to be an appeal, the prosecutors are likely to focus on this area.
The most controversial part is whether Ma, as president, was allowed to personally explain to Jiang and then-Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) Wang’s involvement in the influence peddling case.
The Taipei District Court maintained that any case handled by prosecutors that has not yet been closed — whether an administrative or a criminal case — should not be disclosed. Ma’s actions should therefore be considered as having deliberately leaked classified information.
However, the court concluded that the Constitution grants the president “special presidential executive powers” to conciliate differences between the five government branches in a dispute, and that these powers absolve him of any wrongdoing.
A question that must be asked is why a simple case that involves influence peddling should be considered capable of causing a dispute among the different branches of government. Perhaps prosecutors and judges should all ponder Article 80 of the Constitution, which stipulates that judges shall be above partisanship, and hold trials independently and in accordance with the law.
Too much concern and speculation about politics is not a good thing.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor in Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US