Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) proposed an amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法), attempting to specify that the Constitutional Court should have 15 justices, referring to Article 5 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (中華民國憲法增修條文).
If the proposal were enacted, it might result in the Constitutional Court being unable to pass judgements.
For example, based on Article 30 of the act — “a judgement shall be rendered by a majority of the total number of the incumbent justices of the Constitutional Court with a quorum of two-thirds of the total number of the incumbent justices thereof taking part in the proceedings.”
A simple majority is needed for the Constitutional Court to pass a judgement, but under the proposed change, 10 would need to agree in each case.
KMT legislators are also boycotting the ratification of judicial nominees, resulting in not enough justices to oversee cases. Should the proposed amendment pass, it would paralyze the Constitutional Court.
It is no wonder that more than 300 lawyers marched in Taipei on Saturday to protest against the proposal and to protect the Constitution.
Article 49 of the act stipulates that one-quarter or more of legislators may lodge a petition with the Constitutional Court for a judgement declaring an impugned statutory law unconstitutional.
According to the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法), the “total number” of legislators is based on the actual number of registered legislators in a session, excluding those who resign, leave office or die during the session.
That means Weng’s proposal confuses the meaning of “total number of the incumbent” in the same law and fails in terms of legislative technique.
In reviewing whether a law is unconstitutional, justices give priority to interpretations that are consistent with the intention of the Constitution without undermining the intentions of legislators. This is done to respect the legislature and maintain the stability of the law. Only when a conclusion of constitutionality cannot be reached after all interpretation methods have been exhausted would the justices declare a law to be unconstitutional.
However, the plan to amend the law to raise the vote threshold for the Constitutional Court to make a judgement is a tactic to restrain the justices from declaring laws unconstitutional. This would result in the “order” created by the majority of the Legislative Yuan being maintained — tantamount to allowing lawmakers themselves to decide whether legislation is constitutional.
That would create a legislature without checks and balances, making it difficult to protect human rights.
There should be room for social dialogue and legislative debate on whether it is necessary to amend the act and how to appropriately do so.
Rogue bandits are on the loose, but the political parties keep wasting time and energy on internal conflicts.
Hopefully, the ruling and opposition parties will resolve their differences as soon as possible.
Jiang Zung-shiang is a lawyer and a member of the Judicial Reform Foundation’s executive committee.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS