Print

Mail

wiki links

Referendum law facing challenges

The Cabinet yesterday decided to file a motion to overturn 12 articles of the recently passed Referendum Law (公民投票法) and amend others after the law is promulgated, Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) told the press conference yesterday afternoon.

Also yesterday the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus said it would request the Council of Grand Justices to rule on articles in the controversial law which the caucus maintains are unconstitutional.

"Since overturning a law can only abolish articles, we're taking different approaches to make the law better," Lin said at a news conference yesterday afternoon.

The Cabinet is scheduled to officially approve its proposal tomorrow during the weekly Cabinet meeting. According to the Constitution, the Cabinet has to file a request for the legislature to reconsider the articles before Friday and the legislature has to reach a resolution before Dec. 27.

Articles the Cabinet decided to overturn include the clause empowering the legislature to initiate a national referendum and those in relation to the establishment and responsibilities of the Referendum Supervisory Committee.

The Cabinet argued that the article allowing the legislature to initiate a national referendum should be annulled because it expands the legislative power.

The Cabinet wants the supervisory committee, the function of which, it argues, overlaps with that of the legislature, to be abolished.

Articles the Cabinet seeks to amend include the 5 percent threshold set for the citizenry's right to file a petition to launch a national referendum.

The law mandates that signatures amounting to 5 percent of those who voted in the most recent presidential election, or 770,000 signatures, are required to initiate a national referendum. The Cabinet would like to lower the threshold to 2 percent in line with the number of signatures needed to register as a candidate in a presidential election.

Others articles the Cabinet want to overhaul are those which ban the Cabinet from initiating a referendum, including an advisory one, and those meting out punishments to Cabinet officials violating these rules. The Cabinet argues that the legislation encroaches on the authority of the executive.

The DPP legislative caucus, on the other hand, thinks that some of the articles violate the Constitution and will request a constitutional interpretation on the articles which denies citizens the right to initiate constitutional amendments and yet grant them the exclusive right to repeal such amendments.

Although the DPP does not enjoy a majority in the legislature, Lin said that the government was "not pessimistic" about wining the backing of the legislature.

"As the Constitution mandates that more than half of the legislature is required to endorse or reject our veto motion, the opposition camp has to garner sufficient votes to successfully overturn our request," he said.

If the Cabinet loses its bid to overturn the legislation, Lin said that Premier Yu Shyi-kun does not have to step down to shoulder any political responsibility -- as requested by the opposition.

The Constitution mandates that if more than half of the legislature vetoes the Cabinet's request, the Cabinet must accept the law or resolution, which would then go into effect three days after it is promulgated by the president.

If lawmakers are upset by the Cabinet's attempt to reject a law, they can then call for a no-confidence vote against the premier. However, a petition to call such a vote must be endorsed by one-third of lawmakers. A no-confidence vote must be called within 72 hours of the petition being filed.

Responding to the opposition camp's threat to return the Cabinet's request, Lin said that the legislature is required by the Constitution to decide whether to endorse or reject the Cabinet's request 15 days after receiving the Cabinet's veto motion.

"They still have to make a decision even if they return our request," Lin said, adding that the opposition's threat reflects their political motive to hijack the "preventative referendum" guaranteed by the Referendum Law.
This story has been viewed 4693 times.