Three grand justices — Tsai Tsung-jen (蔡宗珍), Yang Hui-chin (楊惠欽) and Chu Fu-mei (朱富美) — have released a five-point statement arguing that the Constitutional Court remains bound by the provisions of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (CCPA, 憲法訴訟法) governing the quorum and voting requirements for convening and hearing cases. Amended in December last year, the act now requires at least 10 justices to hear a case and nine affirmative votes to declare a law unconstitutional, replacing the previous rule that required two-thirds of sitting justices to participate and a simple majority to reach a decision.
However, with only seven sitting justices and a deadlock in the Legislative Yuan stalling further nominations, the court has effectively been paralyzed. It seems that the justices who claim that the court is therefore unable to rule on the CCPA’s constitutionality have fallen into a circular reasoning trap.
First, the justices have argued that because the CCPA is a constitutionally authorized piece of legislation, and they are bound by the Constitution, they must abide by the CCPA and only convene the Constitutional Court under its stipulated provisions. This would be perfectly logical if the constitutionality of the CCPA itself were not in question, specifically Article 30, which sets out the new voting thresholds for judgements.
If a law is blocking itself from review, and justices do not intervene, does this not amount to legislative powers interfering in the court’s ability to carry out its constitutional function? To presume the constitutional viability of a law prior to its own review would surely be a case of judgement before trial.
Second, all valid legislation, including laws enacted under constitutional authority and those promulgated by presidential order, is subject to constitutional review. This review system allows the nullification of any law found to contravene the Constitution, as stipulated in Item 1, Article 171. Accordingly, the CCPA itself must also be open to such review. Yet the very statute whose constitutionality is in question is being invoked to block its own examination — a crisis of tautological and circular reasoning.
Third, the role of grand justices is to implement and enforce the legal hierarchy set out in Article 171 of the Constitution — their primary goal should be to uphold the Constitution as the nation’s foundational law.
It is the justices — not legislators — who interpret the spirit of the Constitution and ensure no enacted law contravenes it. The statement released by these three grand justices, appearing to capitulate to the Legislative Yuan, therefore, is puzzling and deeply concerning.
Hsu Hui-feng is a professor at CTBC Business School’s Department of Business and Economic Law.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
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,
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
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
“Of course you can choose not to be Taiwanese, just do not stay here,” chairwoman of Taipei 101 operator Taipei Financial Center Corp Janet Chia (賈永婕) said in an online interview with local entertainer Tai Chih-yuan (邰智源), triggering intense discussion on social media, with politicians across party lines weighing in. In the interview, which was aired on May 14, Chia and Tai’s discussion over a meal in Taipei 101 covered Chia’s career change from entertainer to chairwoman and US climber Alex Honnold’s free solo climb up the Taipei 101 building. During the interview, Chia said, “Being on this land, we
RSS