After the Council of Grand Justices's interpretation of the Constitution (Ruling 520) was released on Jan. 15, the ruling has become the subject of various interpretations. One controversy is this: does the ruling sufficiently explain the constitutionality of the Executive Yuan's decision to halt construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (
While the ruling does not explicitly state that the Executive Yuan's act was unconstitutional, it clearly states that "as ceasing the implementation of a legally-mandated budget has the function of changing the direction of the administration or important policies, [taking such an action] without the participation of the Legislative Yuan is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate to have the legislative branch participate in policymaking."
The question then becomes: is inconsistency with the constitutional mandate a violation of the Constitution?
Looking back at the rulings of the Council of Grand Justices over the years, we discover that "inconsistency with the constitutional mandate" is not an innovative, ambiguous term. Rather, it appears frequently in various rulings. Ruling 384, for example, states that certain articles of the regulations on the prosecution and eradication of "black gold" are "inconsistent with the mandate" of Article 8 of the Constitution. In Ruling 392, certain articles in the criminal prosecution law are also deemed "inconsistent with the mandate" of Item 2, Article 8 of the Constitution. Ruling 443 also finds regulations on circumstances in which males eligible for military service may leave the country to be "inconsistent with the mandate" of Article 10 of the Constitution. Do those who hold that the Executive Yuan's decision was not "unconstitutional" because the ruling does not explicitly state it to have been so, also think that the above-described rulings did not find the relevant regulations or laws unconstitutional for the same reason?
The biggest difference between Ruling 520 and most of the previous rulings is that the past rulings typically state when the relevant regulations or laws lost their legal force. In Ruling 520, although the justices also state that the decision to halt construction was inconsistent with the constitutional mandate, it does not clearly state whether the decision thereby loses its legal force. The ruling simply goes on to state that the decision was procedurally flawed and the Executive Yuan must make up for the skipped procedural step immediately. As a result, the ruling has led to another controversy over whether construction of the plant should be resumed first.
It is by now meaningless to continue debate over whether the language of the ruling indicates "unconstitutionality." As the Council of Grand Justices has made its interpretation, the remaining issues must be dealt with through political means. We can only hope that both the opposition and ruling parties will be able to demonstrate the magnanimity of political statesmen, and leave behind the baggage of political hatred and ideology. Attach top priority to the welfare of the people, and the protection of the constitutional order. Begin inter-party negotiations as soon as possible and exercise collective wisdom in the resolution of political standoffs. This would be a result that most Taiwanese would be happy to see.
Professor Wang Yeh-li is chairman of the Department of Political Science of Tunghai University.
Apart from the first arms sales approval for Taiwan since US President Donald Trump took office, last month also witnessed another milestone for Taiwan-US relations. Trump signed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act into law on Tuesday. Its passing without objection in the US Senate underscores how bipartisan US support for Taiwan has evolved. The new law would further help normalize exchanges between Taiwanese and US government officials. We have already seen a flurry of visits to Washington earlier this summer, not only with Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), but also delegations led by National Security Council Secretary-General Joseph Wu
In A phone call between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Xi is reported to have stated that in his view, “Taiwan’s return to China” is to be considered an integral part of the post-World War II international order. Never mind that China under Xi has been trying to undermine the liberal post-war international order by setting up alternative organizations and schemes that are detrimental to freedom and democracy around the world. Its own repression of Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong are vivid examples. The “return to China” is the biggest misnomer: Taiwan has never ever been part
When the towers of Wang Fuk Court turned into a seven-building inferno on Wednesday last week, killing 128 people, including a firefighter, Hong Kong officials promised investigations, pledged to review regulations and within hours issued a plan to replace bamboo scaffolding with steel. It sounded decisive. It was not. The gestures are about political optics, not accountability. The tragedy was not caused by bamboo or by outdated laws. Flame-retardant netting is already required. Under Hong Kong’s Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme — which requires buildings more than 30 years old to undergo inspection every decade and compulsory repairs — the framework for
President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week announced a plan to invest an additional NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.8 billion) in military spending to procure advanced defense systems over the next eight years, and outlined two major plans and concrete steps to defend democratic Taiwan in the face of China’s intensifying threat. While Lai’s plans for boosting the country’s national security have been praised by many US lawmakers, former defense officials, academics and the American Institute in Taiwan, the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan, they were not equally welcomed by all Taiwanese, particularly among the opposition parties. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman
RSS