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
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS