President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) raised eyebrows recently when it was revealed that his lawyer had filed a letter of committal for trial to the Taipei District Court with regard to a forgery lawsuit Ma filed against Prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen (侯寬仁) in January last year.
Hou was one of the prosecutors probing Ma’s handling of his special allowance funds when Ma was Taipei mayor, minister of justice, vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council and other posts.
Ma accused Hou of inaccurately documenting his questioning of Wu Li-ju (吳麗洳), a Taipei City Government treasurer, about how Ma used his special mayoral fund.
‘BIAS’
Last year Ma asked the court to remove three prosecutors from his cases, citing “bias,” but State Public Prosecutor-General Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明) rejected the request.
The Presidential Office defended Ma’s decision to go after Hou, arguing that the move was not out of personal interest but to serve as an example to others.
Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) said she respected the president’s right to do so.
Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) said Hou might deserve scrutiny, but he alone must not be targeted.
Lu is also under investigation for her use of the special allowance fund during her stint as Taoyuan County commissioner. Lu urged Ma to help all those embroiled in cases involving the discretionary fund, which she described as a “historic glitch.”
Former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) criticized Ma for sabotaging the constitutional system, saying Ma should step down and give up his presidential immunity before filing the appeal.
Judicial Reform Foundation executive director Kao Yung-cheng (高涌誠) said that he did not see how Ma would benefit from the lawsuit or how, in Ma’s word, his decision would serve the public interest.
Kao said he did not blame Ma’s legal advisers for making such a suggestion, but Ma — a law graduate and seasoned politician — did not seem to have the political wisdom to make the best decision.
It would be a lose-lose situation for Ma, Kao said, because the public would doubt the impartiality of the court if Ma wins, and Ma would put himself in an awkward position if he loses.
Statistics show that the odds of Ma winning the case are one in a thousand, Kao said, adding that he was “99 percent sure the court would turn down Ma’s request.”
Kao said legally Ma had the right to go after Hou as a civilian, but the question was whether it was necessary for the president to desert administrative means and seek justice in court.
As prosecutors are civil servants, Kao said Ma could have the justice minister or state public prosecutor-general mete out punishment had Hou done anything wrong.
Ma could also make efforts to improve the evaluation system of prosecutors, strengthen their exit mechanism or ask the government watchdog, the Control Yuan, to step in.
With its legislative majority, Kao said Ma could also ask the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to amend the laws and make the system better rather than seeking personal justice at the expense of others.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Kao said the system of committal for trial was problematic and flawed, with some criminal litigation experts considering it unconstitutional.
While the prosecutor, in this case Hou, was cleared of the forgery charges by the district court and high court, the accused, in this case Ma, requested another court to decide the propriety of the rulings of the district and high courts.
RSS