Pan-greens take case against `319' statute to court

The dispute surrounding the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (三一九槍擊事件真相調查特別委員會條例) escalated yesterday as the pan-green camp asked Judicial Yuan for a temporary injunction and a constitutional interpretation on the statute, while the pan-blue camp condemned their rivals for "evading the truth," and said an interim injunction was not feasible.

Officials at the Judicial Yuan, meanwhile, said that there was no precedent for a temporary injunction order.

"There never has been a temporary injunction order issued in this kind of situation, and now the laws do no have any related regulations. But if the people asking for a constitutional interpretation make such a request, I believe the Grand Justices will deal with the request," Judicial Yuan Secretary-General Fan Kuang-chun (范光群) said.

The continuing political battle between the pan-green camp and the pan-blue camp over the statute produced yet another casualty yesterday: People First Party (PFP) Legislator Cheng Chih-lung, who failed to turn up at the voting two days ago.

The PFP announced yesterday that it would kick Cheng out of the party because it believed Cheng missed the voting because of influence from the pan-greens.

Despite losing the vote on the reconsideration request two days ago, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) caucuses have not given up in their efforts to prevent the statute from becoming effective.

According to DPP Legislator Yu Ching (尤清), the concept of a temporary injunction (einstweilige Anordnungen) has been borrowed from Germany, as there is no such mechanism in Taiwan's legal system.

The Germany's Federal Constitutional Court Act (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz) stipulates that in a dispute the Federal Constitutional Court may deal with a matter provisionally by means of a temporary injunction if this is urgently needed to avert serious detriment, ward off imminent force or to protect the common well-being.

"The caucus is making a reasonable demand by asking for a temporary injunction statute. Even though Taiwan's written laws do not stipulate such a concept, the Grand Justices should still consider the possibility," Yu said.

The DPP and TSU caucuses also applied for a constitutional interpretation of the statute, although it has yet to be promulgated by the president. The procedure for a constitutional interpretation begins only after a bill is promulgated by the president, and usually takes about six months to a year.

"The statute overrides the power the Constitution bestows on the Legislative Yuan and violates the power of other constitutional agencies. It has violated the principle of separation of powers, so we are asking for a constitutional interpretation," Ker said.

But the pan-blue camp attacked the pan-green camp's attempt to suspend the statute as "disrespect to the Constitution."

"The laws in our country do not include such a term as `temporary injunction,' and the DPP has created this term only to blur the focus and interfere with the investigation," PFP caucus whip Liu Wen-hsiung (劉文雄) said.