Mon, Dec 22, 2025 page1

• Civic groups back top court’s decision

  ‘BACK ON TRACK’: The court’s decision was important in reaffirming the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive, the groups’ statement said

  • By Lin Hsin-han / Staff reporter
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  More than 20 civic groups, 160 academics and 130 lawyers yesterday issued a joint statement supporting the Constitutional Court’s ruling on Friday that amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法) passed last year were unconstitutional, saying it was the first step to restoring the nation’s constitutional democracy.

  The Legislative Yuan on Dec. 20 last year passed amendments stipulating that at least 10 justices must take part in constitutional deliberations, and at least nine justices must agree to find a bill or law unconstitutional. The amendments took effect on Jan. 25.

  Seven of the 15 justices ended their term on Oct. 31 last year. Opposition lawmakers twice rejected President William Lai’s (賴清德) nominees to fill the vacancies, first in December last year and again in July. Lai has not nominated anyone nominees since.

  

  A plaque for the Constitutional Court is pictured on its building in Taipei on Friday last week.

  Photo: CNA

  Five of the remaining justices on Friday found the law unconstitutional, saying its legislative process contained “obvious and significant defects,” contravened legislative procedure and breached the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

  Three justices from the eight-member court dissented and were not counted toward the total number of justices presiding over the case.

  The civic groups in the statement said that the first Constitutional Court judgement made this year has brought the court back to life, ending 328 days of paralysis since the amendments were passed.

  “As people who are concerned about the development of Taiwan’s constitutional democracy, we firmly support this judgement,” it said, adding that it is the first step toward “getting out of the mud” and “back on track” to solving constitutional disputes, including fundamental rights protections and the separation of powers.

  The conflict between the Cabinet and the legislature has intensified in the past year, but when there was a need to clarify the separation of powers, the court, which plays the role of an objective mediator, could not make judgements, the statement said.

  “More importantly, the justices cited ‘serious procedural irregularities’ in their judgement, pointing out that the Legislative Yuan violated the principles of openness and transparency when they passed the amendments, which is why they were unconstitutional,” it added.

  This compels lawmakers to avoid using the “tyranny of the majority” to pass bills, ensuring the legislative process returns to the right track with transparency, open communications and thorough deliberation, it said.

  Meanwhile, the statement said that by utilizing the principle of separation of powers and the procedural autonomy granted by the Constitution, the judgement also established that the court is only bound by a Constitutional Court Procedure Act that is constitutional.

  It draws a clear line between judicial and legislative powers, ensuring that the Legislative Yuan could not paralyze the Constitutional Court again, it said.

  “We commend the efforts made in this judgement, allowing us to look forward to a healthier, functioning constitutional democracy,” it said.

  “We respect the three justices’ criticisms of this judgement based on legal theory raised through extrajudicial journal articles,” the statement said, adding that, however, “the Constitutional Court that rendered this judgement was by no means ‘illegally constituted.’”

  Over the past year, the prolonged absence of these three justices from deliberations and their choice to issue public statements outside their duties have damaged public trust in the court, and so should be regarded as having recused themselves, the statement said.

  Therefore, the current total number of justices for this case should be five, and the two-thirds threshold for making a judgement should be four, so the judgement made by five justices is constitutionally valid, the statement said.

  Even as the Constitutional Court resumes operations, the unavoidable reality is that the court has become an unprecedentedly “divided court” through this judgement, and that the divided court might have stemmed from Taiwan’s divided society, it added.

  “We sincerely hope that continued public discussion will lead us out of this constitutional dilemma as we collectively seek the ‘greatest common factor’ for a free and democratic constitutional system,” it said.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Stuttgart and Nottingham Forest advance

  • 2

    Harden hails ‘special’ Cavs after win over Knicks

  • 3

    Spurs sink the Pistons in Detroit

  • 4

    Inter exit after Bodo/Glimt loss

  • 5

    Cubs prospect Jonathon Long to withdraw from Team Taiwan at WBC due to injury