Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling’s (翁曉玲) proposed amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法) — which would mandate that the two-thirds of the Constitutional Court’s 15 justices must be present to form a quorum, which could paralyze the court — has the legal community in an uproar.
What is even more outrageous is that Weng admitted in an interview that it would be a good thing if the court was unable to function for a long time. Weng is unashamed about her malicious intent to paralyze the Constitutional Court and undermine the Constitution — she has not made even the slightest attempt to hide it.
Weng’s proposal led to a protest by thousands of people, including 153 lawyers, on Nov. 16 to call for the protection of the Constitution. Lawyers from the Taiwan Bar Association, as well as the bar associations of Nantou County, Hsinchu, Miaoli County, Taipei, Tainan, Taoyuan, Pingtung County and other regions, declared their opposition to the amendment.
However, Weng responded to the legal community’s concerns with nothing but political rhetoric, dismissing them as being allies of the pan-green camp.
That drew a sharp rebuke from former grand justice Huang Hung-hsia (黃虹霞), who joined the lawyers’ protest, saying she is no “green ally.” Huang said she was nominated as a grand justice by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and was elected unanimously at a time when the KMT was the largest party in the legislature — if anything, she might be considered a “Ma ally.” Huang said legislators have no right to paralyze the court justices, nor do they have the authority to suspend the public’s right to a constitutional appeal.
Why does Weng so fervently promote this Constitution-damaging amendment? To put it simply, Constitutional Court justices are like constitutional police officers. If someone attempts to infringe upon the Constitution, these police officers would blow their whistles and block the action from taking place. Those with a history of constitutional infringements fear the justices.
Weng’s previous proposal to expand legislative oversight was ruled unconstitutional by the court. Weng herself has a history of constitutional infringement and wants to establish a law that would paralyze these constitutional police officers, destroying the Constitution by rejecting checks and balances, and throwing the government into chaos.
Weng’s proposed iteration of the law contradicts Constitutional Interpretation No. 632, The Exercise of Constitutional Powers and the Duty of Loyal Cooperation of Constitutional Organs Case (憲法機關忠誠義務及權力分立原則). The constitutions of the US, Germany and other democratic countries all possess mechanisms to prevent the paralysis of constitutional review bodies in order to maintain the most basic principles of democratic constitutional governance and ensure the public’s right to constitutional litigation is not compromised.
When compared with the democratic countries of the world, Weng’s proposed version of the law possesses no mechanism to prevent the paralysis of the Constitutional Court — it is clearly unconstitutional.
It is imperative that the Constitutional Court stop Weng’s malicious and harmful amendment. Even if there are currently only eight justices, the court cannot shirk its constitutional duty. It should rule that Weng’s proposed amendment is unconstitutional. However, this would inevitably trigger complaints from KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators that the number of justices does not meet the legal threshold for a valid ruling.
To prevent the Constitutional Court from being caught in such a dilemma, a second approach is to consider the importance of maintaining democratic constitutional order. Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) could refuse to countersign this unconstitutional amendment, thereby preventing it from taking effect.
According to the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (中華民國憲法增修條文), the legislature has the authority to propose a vote of no confidence against a premier who refuses to countersign, which would force the premier to resign if passed. From there, the president could dissolve the legislature and hold new legislative elections.
If the KMT and the TPP are confident that they represent the majority of public opinion, they have no need to fear a vote of no confidence.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and chairman of the Taiwan Forever Association.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS