Hundreds of lawyers of the Taiwan Bar Association and seven local bar associations on Saturday held a protest in Taipei against a proposed amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法), which they said would incapacitate the court and sabotage the nation’s liberal democratic constitutional order.
Under the amendments proposed by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), the act would be changed to specify that the “total number of incumbent justices” mentioned in the act means “15” — the courts full number of judges, while a two-thirds majority would be needed to issue a ruling.
The current law requires a simple majority — based on the number of judges present and participating in a deliberation — to pass a ruling, but under the amendments, a ruling would require the participation and approval of at least 10 justices.
Some people are worried that this higher threshold could cripple the court’s effectiveness.
Making the situation worse, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) — which together hold a combined majority in the legislature — have been delaying the approval of seven new justices nominated by President William Lai (賴清德).
There are currently only eight incumbent justices, short of the proposed 10-member quorum, so if the amendments passed, the Constitutional Court would be paralyzed.
The Constitutional Court’s role is not only to clarify the separation of powers and resolve disputes between state agencies, but also to serve as a last resort for defending citizens’ fundamental rights.
The nation’s liberal democratic constitutional order would disintegrate if the court is incapacitated, the bar associations said on Saturday.
The lawyers also cited justice appointment mechanisms and constitutional court ruling requirements in other countries, including the quorum of justices and threshold for passing a ruling in the supreme courts of the US, Canada and Japan, as well as Germany’s Federal Court of Justice.
They said that while they all have a required minimum number of justices for passing a ruling, they also have mechanisms for avoiding a paralyzed court due to an inability to reach a quorum. For example, the US Supreme Court chief justice can assign cases to a circuit appeals court.
The lawyers raised concerns that Weng’s proposal makes passing constitutional rulings much more difficult, especially without a mechanism to avoid court incapacitation, which would surely pose a serious risk to the constitutional system.
TPP Legislator and former lawyer Vivian Huang (黃珊珊) in an article in the Chinese-language Contemporary Law Journal also opposed Weng’s proposal.
She said that Weng’s concerns are unfounded, as there were no rulings in which professional opinions were disregarded, and rulings made by a few justices are hardly possible in reality.
Weng on Friday stubbornly adhered to her view that the lawyers are only a minority of “Democratic Progressive Party supporters,” adding that the risk of paralyzing the court lies in Lai’s nomination of justices, not her proposed amendments.
While the draft amendments are still under review in cross-caucus discussions, the TPP’s stance would be critical, as it would be put to a floor vote if a consensus is not reached. After an internal meeting on Friday, the TPP caucus said it would propose its own amendment bill, which has not yet been revealed.
Although the KMT caucus has denied online reports that the next review of the bill is scheduled for tomorrow, people should continue to pay close attention and voice their concerns to local lawmakers.
If the amendment is passed, it would certainly affect their fundamental rights.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS