Sun, Oct 03, 1999 page6

• • By Kao Jui-zen and Calvin Tsai (高瑞錚　與　蔡兆誠)
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  According to the news media, certain Ministry of Justice (MOJ) officials revealed that the Legislative Yuan has indicated, in a written reply to a written inquiry by the Executive Yuan, that the legislative process of the Regulation for the Suppression of Banditry and Robbery (Robbery Law, 懲治盜匪條例) was not illegal in any way. Therefore, Chen Chin-hsing (陳進興), who received three death sentences under the Robbery Law, may be executed soon, and other prisoners -- such as Chen Wen-hai (陳文海) -- who were placed on death row pursuant to this same law may also soon be executed after the Minister of Justice approves the executions.

  I found the news most surprising. The Judicial Committee of the Legislative Yuan had held a public hearing on the enforceability of the Robbery Law. A great majority of those attending the hearing, which included scholars and representatives of various private human rights and judicial reform organizations, agreed that the Robbery Law had long lapsed. Some legislators therefore decided to once again petition for an interpretation of the Constitution by the Grand Justices so that the controversy may be resolved once and for all. I was asked to draft the petition. The original plan was to complete the endorsement of the petition after the Legislative Yuan went into session in September before filing the petition with the Judicial Yuan. However, the Legislative Yuan temporary delayed reconvening due to the 921 earthquake, and therefore, we have been unable to complete the endorsement process.

  Now all of a sudden the Legislative Yuan supposedly declared that the legislative process of the Robbery Law was not at all illegal. I immediately inquired with legislators who have been concerned about the matter, only to discover that no one knew who prepared the written reply. The reply was neither provided by the general assembly nor by the Judicial Committee of the Legislative Yuan.

  I later found out that the written inquiry was provided by the Agenda Office at the Legislative Yuan. The written reply simply outlined the legislative and amendment processes of the Robbery Law without taking a position on the issue of the law's enforceability. Therefore, by stating that the Legislative Yuan returned a written confirmation of the legality of the legislative process of the Robbery Law, the MOJ was obviously reading way too much into the said written reply. In any event, it was rather strange that such an important inquiry was replied by the Agenda Office without any discussions on the Legislative Yuan floor or by the Judicial Committee.

  Since the Legislative Yuan's reply did not take a position on the legality of the law, the Minister of Justice naturally cannot use it as a justification to approve the execution of death-row inmates. Minister of Justice Yeh Chin-fong (葉金鳳) must therefore shoulder the responsibility in deciding whether to approve the execution of the death-row inmates.

  Although the human rights organizations are rather dissatisfied with the MOJ's adamant position that the Robbery Law is still enforceable, these organizations do support and recognize Minister Yeh's decision to temporarily withhold the approval of the executions. Although the MOJ's position is rather consistent, it is doing the right thing by being cautious, since a wrongful execution would be irreparable under this highly controversial law.

  However, now that Chen Chin-hsing is linked with the controversy, would the general public pressure Minister Yeh to change her prior decision about temporarily freezing execution?

  Chen is guilty of a crime sufficiently horrible to enrage both the gods and humankind (人神共憤). Many people would believe that Cheng deserves to die a million times (罪該萬死). The problem is that the three death sentences were imposed based on the Robbery Law. The rule of law principle would be trampled and executed along with the execution of Chen. What is more important deserves a closer and deeper analysis.

  There have been many stellar examples across times and cultures of legal professionals fighting for universal justice and righteousness. The most touching part of these examples is the main characters' ability to resist public opinion and state power using the rule of law principle. The choice faced by Minister Yeh has long-lasting educational and legal significance. Even a villain such as Chen must be tried lawfully.

  Therefore, why not execute Chen's death sentences after a verdict has been reached in the trial for the kidnapping and murder of Pai Hsiao-yen (白曉燕) (ie, the charges in the case were made under the Criminal Code). A temporary freeze on Chen's execution would preserve the integrity of the rule of law principle. The ability to know what is important requires the utmost wisdom. As for how much longer the execution of other death-row inmates should be put on hold, why not wait for a resolution by the Grand Justices' interpretation of the Constitution?

  Kao Jui-zen is the president of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Reform Foundation (民間司法改格基金會). Calvin Tsai is a member of the foundation.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    New Taipei building collapses near construction site in Sanchong

  • 2

    What! Dad made a fortune selling English in Taiwan?

  • 3

    Taiwan launches ‘digital nomad’ visa

  • 4

    Dell picks AMD for business PCs

  • 5

    Ministry lifts overseas limits on TSMC