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 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
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
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,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS