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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS