The following is a statement by alumni and current students of the College of Law (Undergraduate Department and Graduate Institute) at National Taiwan University of opposition to the unlawful amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法):
Separation of powers is the backbone of modern democracies. The only way separation of powers can operate effectively is through the equal balance of all constitutional bodies. The Constitution defines the Judicial Yuan as the highest judicial organ of the state, with the responsibility to interpret the Constitution, and the power to create a singular interpretation of laws and executive orders.
Furthermore, according to the Judicial Yuan Organization Act (司法院組織法), the justices of the Judicial Yuan comprise the Constitutional Court — a body tasked with safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights and the democratic constitutional order. The Constitutional Court is an indispensable part of our nation’s judiciary. It must not be suspended, even for one day.
On Dec. 20 last year, the Legislative Yuan passed amendments to articles 4, 30, and 43 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, stipulating that a minimum of 10 justices participate in case deliberations and requiring that a ruling of unconstitutionality be supported by at least nine justices. These thresholds apply uniformly, regardless of the type of case. In theory, this would make it significantly more difficult for the Constitutional Court to make decisions and pass resolutions. In practice — because there are only eight justices on the Constitutional Court at present — the Legislative Yuan’s partisan majority, comprised of legislators from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) coalition, created a crisis for the court on Dec. 24 last year when it rejected all seven of President William Lai’s (賴清德) judicial nominees.
The newly amended court procedure act would not only paralyze the court, but also subject it to the Legislative Yuan’s manipulation tactics. This would significantly shift the balance of power in favor of the legislature, thereby undermining the country’s mechanisms for protecting the separation of powers and guaranteeing human rights.
From the Judicial Yuan’s constitutional interpretations to the rulings of the Constitutional Court, the judiciary has been a fundamental pillar of our nation’s democratic system. However, the Legislative Yuan’s efforts to significantly weaken — even paralyze — the judiciary to expand its own authority are an assault on the separation of powers, harmful to the democratic constitutional order, and an active and deliberate contravention of the legislature’s obligations as proscribed by the Constitution. The vast majority of cases heard and ruled on by the Consitutional Court relate directly to citizen’s fundamental rights. Thus, the newly amended act — with its goal of weakening the judiciary — would sacrifice the protection of those fundamental rights. This is absolutely unacceptable.
As students of law, the democratic constitutional order is the core of our belief system. Based on all we know and have learned, we cannot sit by and watch the paralysis of the Constitutional Court, nor the collapse of the separation of powers. Therefore, we have chosen to take a stand in support of the Constitutional Court — to let the court know that citizens’ need it to continue functioning, and that the public hopes it would continue to uphold the Constitution and safeguard our human rights. We live in an era of freedom. We understand that the democratic constitutional order is — much like air, water and sunlight — absolutely essential. We hope more Taiwanese become aware of this issue so that they, too, would stand with us in defense of freedom.
List of co-signers (by name and year of admittance): Lai Chung-chiang (賴中強), 1988; Fu Zu-sheng (傅祖聲), 1978; Liao Shiang (廖國翔), 2006; Lawrence Yang (楊舜麟), 1995; Cheng Ya-fang (鄭雅方), 1995; Jenssen Yang Ching-hsiang (楊晴翔), 1996; Chen Li-jung (陳立蓉), 2012; Chang Chih-peng (張志朋), 1996; Wei Chao-tsung (魏潮宗), 1999; Lin Chung-hao (林仲豪), 1993; Lin Yen-hung (林彥宏), 2007; Yu Mei-nu (尤美女), 1973; Chen Ying-ju (陳盈如), 2006; Jamie Lin (林詩梅), 1992; Li Ai-lun (李艾倫), 1997; Wang Chan-shing (王展星), 1993; Hung San-hsiung (洪三雄), 1968; Lindy Chen (陳玲玉), 1969; Chen Yu-hsin (陳又新), 2000; Chu Fang-chun (朱芳君), 1998; Lai You-hao (賴又豪), 2009; Lin Yung-sung (林永頌), 1979; Chen Peng-kwang (陳鵬光), 1993; Chuang Hua-lung (莊華隆), 2014; Tang Yu-ying (唐玉盈), 2003; Huang Win-soon (黃盈舜), 1996; Dennis Chen (陳家慶), 2006; Fang Kang-hsiang (范綱祥), 1984; Hsueh Ching-feng (薛欽峰), 1987; Khloe Lai (賴冠妤), 2016.
Lai Chung-chiang is a human rights lawyer and the convener of the Economic Democracy Union.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS