President Chen Shui-bian's (
With only a few months remaining until next year's presidential elections, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are contesting every inch of territory. Taking a closer look, however, we see that the problem begins with the judiciary itself as the DPP and the KMT presidential candidates are either under judicial investigation or at trial. This creates an awkward situation that has resulted in intensifying criticism and questioning of the judiciary, while Chen's repeated accusations have further complicated the matter by leading to guesswork and debate.
Maybe the doubts about the political affiliations of members of the judiciary will regress into the same kind of political bickering that has developed over the investigation of the KMT's stolen party assets. I wonder if we all shouldn't seize upon this issue as an opportunity to calmly consider the fundamental logic underlying the debate.
Article 81 of the Constitution stipulates that "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 measures, or declared to be under interdiction. No judge shall, except in accordance with law, be suspended or transferred or have his salary reduced."
Simply put, judges enjoy very strong protection, and unless they decide to leave their position voluntarily, it is very difficult to disqualify a judge. Constitutional Interpretation No.13 by the Council of Grand Justices stipulates that "the guarantee of tenured prosecutors, according to Article 82 of the Constitution and Article 40, Paragraph 2, of the Court Organic Act, apart from their transfer, is the same as that of tenured judges."
Participation in a political party is part of the right to participate in government and political affairs. Nevertheless, the freedom to join a party can still be legally restricted to the extent required to promote public interest. This is also allowed for in Article 23 of the Constitution.
Why can't we demand that all judicial officers, including judges and prosecutors, leave any political parties before taking up their posts? Given the judges' privileges of holding office for life, could this restriction be accepted?
Going one step further, what substantive impact would disengaging from partisan activities have on judicial officers? Don't we all agree that any member of the judiciary engaging in politics must first leave their position in the judiciary?
During the authoritarian period, there was nothing strange about judicial officers joining a political party. It has now been more than 20 years since martial law was lifted and Taiwan has moved into the democratic era, and yet the political affiliations of judicial officers are now being questioned.
Should we really not make some effort to bring about judicial impartiality? At the very least, shouldn't we push for some kind of collective decision among judicial officers to annul party membership in order to maintain a clean reputation that would allow them to silence any critics. Better that than just following the indifferent recommendation from the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice that judges and prosecutors stand above party affiliations and act independently and according to the law.
The criticism comes from the suspicion that judges and prosecutors do not follow this recommendation, so what use is this kind of policy statement?
The Control Yuan, for example, demands that before Control Yuan members take office, they must cease any party activities in order to maintain neutrality while performing their duties so as to remain above suspicion. Since the politically appointed members of the Control Yuan with their limited terms are banned from party activities so as to erase any doubts regarding their party affiliations, shouldn't judges and prosecutors with their lifetime terms and even higher demands of professionalism follow an even higher set of standards?
If the leaders of the judiciary continue to rely on a policy statement that is insufficient to allay concerns, couldn't reform-minded judges and prosecutors stand up and declare that all judicial officers should withdraw completely from political parties? This would leave critics without anything to say and it would also fulfill the public's expectations for judicial reform.
Lin Feng-jeng is the executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS