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
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS