The Control Yuan, whose members were nominated by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), has passed an investigative report written by its members, Wang Mei-yu (王美玉) and Chang Kuei-mei (仉桂美), calling for a constitutional interpretation of the Act Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations (政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例).
However, the legislation in no way falls under the remit of the Control Yuan, so the request fails to comply with the requirements for a constitutional interpretation request, as found in Article 5 of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act (司法院大法官審理案件法).
The Council of Grand Justices should decline the request and not do the work of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Control Yuan for them.
It has been reported that the Control Yuan hurried the passage of the request because Ma-nominated members wanted it passed before new members nominated by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) assumed their posts.
The findings of the report are identical to the content of a KMT news release titled Party assets act unconstitutional and illegal, KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) hoping Grand Justices uphold justice.
Putting aside that the Control Yuan’s report has absolutely no legal basis, and focusing on what they contend, the basic argument — that the act is unconstitutional — is the same as the KMT’s, and is utterly lacking in democratic credibility or common sense by international law.
The Control Yuan said that the act presupposes a crime has been committed and requires the KMT has to prove its innocence, which is completely counter to the spirit of law.
If the KMT and Control Yuan members understood international law or even German law, they would know that the legislative principle behind the establishment of a criminal offense having been committed in the act in question is neither an issue of saying that it has already been established, nor of unconstitutionality.
According to Article 20 of the UN Convention against Corruption: “Each state party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offense, when committed intentionally, illicit enrichment, that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income.”
In simple terms, the legislative logic behind the allocation of burden of proof complies with international law, and is absolutely devoid of the question of unconstitutionality that the Control Yuan and KMT legislators accuse it of.
Further, the independent commission set up in post reunification Germany to deal with party assets, made known in a 1992 resolution, that the burden of proof for the legitimacy of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany assets was with the party itself.
If Control Yuan members had the slightest international outlook or knowledge of democracy they would not have been misled by the KMT’s complaints.
According to Clause 1, Paragraph 1, Article 5 of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act, the crux of whether the Grand Justices should do a constitutional interpretation on behalf of central government institutions depends on the respective powers of those institutions.
However, the powers legally invested in the Control Yuan have nothing to do with the regulations governing ill-gotten assets. The Grand Justices should act in accordance with Clause 3 of the same article; decline the request and not waste taxpayers’ money by doing the KMT’s dirty work.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
China has started to call Tibet “Xizang” instead of Tibet for several reasons. First, China wants to assert its sovereignty and legitimacy over Tibet, which it claims as an integral part of its territory and history. China argues that the term Xizang, which means “western Tsang” in Chinese, reflects the historical and administrative reality of the region, which was divided into U-Tsang, Amdo and Kham by the Tibetans themselves. China also contends that the term Tibet, which derives from the Mongolian word Tubet, is a foreign imposition that does not represent the diversity and complexity of the region. Second, China wants to
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) had engaged in weeks of political horse-trading between high-ranking officials, hoping to form a joint ticket to win January’s presidential election, but it all ended in a dramatic public falling out on live television on Thursday. The farcical performance involving mudslinging and quarrels among three men — the TPP’s candidate and Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), the KMT’s candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘), an independent — and their aides in the evening before the official candidate registration deadline
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘) might be accused of twice breaking his promises and betraying the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), then launching a signature drive for himself to stand as a candidate in January’s presidential election, only to turn around and quit the race. It clearly shows that rich people are free to do as they like. If that is so, then Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is the perfect example of a political hack who changes his position as easily as turning the pages of a book. Taiwanese independence supporters
On Nov. 15, US President Joe Biden reiterated the US’ commitment to maintaining cross-strait peace and the “status quo” during a meeting with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in San Francisco, California. However, Biden refrained from making clear to Xi what Taiwan’s “status quo” exactly is (as the US defines it). It is not the first time Taiwan’s legal status has become an issue of contention. In September, Tesla CEO Elon Musk caused a media storm after he referred to Taiwan as “an integral part of China” during an interview. This ignorance about
RSS