The Constitutional Court on Jan. 2 issued its first interpretation of the year — which is also its first to follow last year’s Dec. 19 judgement that struck down amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法) that had effectively paralyzed the court for nearly a year.
What is troubling about the latest ruling is not the judgement itself, but the maneuvering of individual justices in an attempt to continue to hold back the court’s operations.
The case was about the ability of defense attorneys to appeal a client’s detention when they are unable to file in person. Three out of the eight sitting justices chose not to vote — they had also refused to participate in last month’s proceedings, which saw the court’s operations resume. The issue is that under the Constitutional Court Procedure Act’s voting thresholds, a person only needs to create a dispute over headcounts to halt the entire court.
It is an example of a legislative overstep that attempts to contain and control the authority that the Constitution confers upon the justices.
The arguments that said the justices who refuse to deliberate should nonetheless be counted toward the total number of voting judges are troubling. That interpretation would ensure that, as long as three judges abstain, the two-thirds adjudicatory threshold — currently six out of eight sitting justices — is never reached. It would grant the minority constitutional veto power and the ability to paralyze the court through non-deliberation without judicial reasoning.
Consequently, the public would be forced to wait indefinitely for resolutions to any major constitutional dispute. Constitutional judgements are meant to offer a way out of deadlock, but this would sever that lifeline and reduce the Constitution to little more than a symbolic ornament.
Under the current circumstances, the continued operation of the Constitutional Court by five justices is not ultra vires, but the most basic form of fidelity to the Constitution. They are not just upholding procedural form, but ensuring that the public’s basic rights to litigation and constitutional relief are not compromised by a legislative black hole.
Yeh Yu-cheng is a secretary at the Pingtung County Public Health Bureau.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS