Print

Mail

wiki links

Aging judicial riddle still perplexes

Are grand justices also "judges"? It's a simple question. But there is still no answer to the question to this day. It has been a mystery in judicial circles for half a century.

The problem began 48 years ago when the Control Yuan was confused by contradictory stipulations for the length of the justices' terms in the Constitution of the Republic of China and the Organic Law of the Judicial Yuan (司法院組織法).

Article 81 of the Constitution states, "Judges shall hold office for life. No judge shall be removed from office unless he has been guilty of a criminal offense or subjected to disciplinary action, or declared to be under interdiction."

However, Article 5 of the Organic Law states that each justice in the Judicial Yuan shall serve "a term of nine years."

The Control Yuan's confusion lies in whether the justices are considered "judges." If they are, why can't they hold office for life, like all other judges?

The Control Yuan then filed a request for a constitutional interpretation from the Council of Grand Justices on May 22, 1957. The National Assembly also demanded an explanation from the Judicial Yuan the next day in order to clarify the matter.

Within four days, the justices issued a statement confirming that justices were also judges. But due to disagreement both inside and outside the Judicial Yuan, they failed to come up with a formal constitutional interpretation.

With the problem unresolved, the Control Yuan withdrew its application two years later, in 1959. But the National Assembly still insisted that a constitutional interpretation be issued.

The case dragged on for 21 years, until the Council of Grand Justices suddenly turned to the matter again in 1980. The court listed it as a case awaiting resolution, and a verdict was scheduled for later in the year.

Unfortunately, the court failed again to resolve the matter, and it is this situation that we have inherited today. In the interim, through a constitutional amendment made in May 1991, Additional Article 5 of the Constitution stipulates that each justice shall serve an eight-year term. But this article obviously contradicts the life term for judges.

The case was put in the spotlight again in 2003, when the legislature vetoed preferential treatment for the justices because they believed them not to be judges, and should therefore not enjoy the same treatment.

In response to the legislative branch's challenge, the judicial branch assigned the case to a special team led by Weng Yueh-sheng (翁岳生) -- who is now Chief Justice and president of the Judicial Yuan -- in an attempt to protect their rights.

Oddly, the other two members of the team, justices Lai In-jaw (賴英照) and Hsu Yu-hsiu (許玉秀), said in a recent interview that they were not aware that they were supposed to be in charge of the case.

So the judicial mystery continues. Whenever the Legislative Yuan is dissatisfied with the Judicial Yuan, the legislature often attacks the unclear status of the justices. And in addition to preferential treatment, the legislature has also removed "judicial professional benefits" for the justices from the beginning of this year, based on the same argument.

Some predict that the Council of Grand Justices may come up with a constitutional interpretation favorable to themselves so soon after repeatedly losing their benefits, and that room for ambiguity will no longer exist.

But this leads to another question: If the justices do have the status of a judge, then why do they enjoy the salary of a Cabinet minister?

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
This story has been viewed 1993 times.