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
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS