Sun, Oct 17, 1999 page3

• DPP cries foul over decree

  QUAKE RESPONSE The government has come under fire for using the emergency decree to free previously blocked projects

  • By Irene Lin / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  During the past week, the Executive Yuan has been strongly challenged by opposition politicians and environmentalists over its use of an executive emergency decree, announced by President Lee Teng-hui in response to the Sept. 21 earthquake.

  Much of the criticism followed allegations that the Ministry of Economic Affairs is to allow -- - by virtue of the emergency decree -- the construction of a private power plant in Taoyuan County, which had previously been suspended following protests by Taoyuan residents concerned over its possible negative environmental impact.

  A number of legal scholars are worried that the emergency order, which was proclaimed by President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) on Sept. 25, in response to the devastating 921 earthquake, would give too much room for administrative authorities to abuse their power.

  

  President Lee Teng-hui signs the post-earthquake emergency decree on Sept. 25, as Presidential Office Secretary-General Huang Kun-hwei looks on.

  PHOTO: CNA

  Some opposition lawmakers accused the KMT of attempting to use the emergency measures to expand its resources and help its bid for the presidential election, scheduled for March 2000.

  "Apparently, the order has been delivered with an eye on the presidential election. They (the KMT) want to use it to buy the support of local factions," said Fan Sun-lu (范巽綠), a DPP legislator.

  Emergency measures, a form of executive order, are nominally used to make up for deficiencies in existing laws in times of emergency. Specially designed for a state of emergency, the executive order aims to secure the supply and distribution of necessities and the maintenance of public peace and safety.

  In general, executive orders are subject to statutes under a hierarchy of laws. But emergency decrees, which aim at increasing administrative efficiency in emergencies, supersede statutes and may suspend other legal instruments within a set time frame -- in this case, six months.

  In European countries, the administrative power to proclaim and apply emergency orders derives from the constitution. In Britain and the United States, emergency powers are conferred by specific regulations on government departments, the armed forces, and other official bodies during a state of emergency.

  In Taiwan, the use of the emergency order is also specified in the constitution. In the past four decades, there have been only three times when an emergency order was issued: after disastrous floods on Aug. 7, 1958; in 1979 when the US severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan, and when then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) died in 1988.

  In response to widespread complaints of inefficiency on the part of the government in dealing with damage caused by the catastrophe, legal scholars are urging the legislature to enhance disaster preparedness by establishing a legal basis for emergency measures.

  Scholars, for their part, have suggested two kinds of legislation: one is the formation of an emergency order law, which specifies timing and procedure for proclaiming an emergency order, its coverage, time frame, as well as its force; the other is the passing of disaster laws, which would specify measures to be taken in response to particular disasters.

  "It's something the legislature has to deal with immediately. We must learn from past disasters and prepare ourselves for future ones. And to make it right, emergency legislation is essential," said Nigel Li (李念祖), a professor of constitutional law from Soochow University.

  "There has been a lot of criticism over the way the government is dealing with the quake and how the emergency order has been carried out. And the very reason for the attacks is that we don't have a legal basis to specify how the government should react in the event of an emergency," Li said.

  Japan, also a quake-prone area, passed a set of laws specifically to deal with disasters in 1962. Along with legislation on general measures to be taken in an emergency, Japan also has legislation that regulates limits to the measures, such as the Post-disaster Rehabilitation Act, specially designed for the 1995 Kobe earthquake.

  Lee Hong-hsi (李鴻禧), a constitutional law professor at National Taiwan University, pointed out that the use of the emergency order is a double-edged sword. If used properly, the order could effectively alleviate the impact of disasters. If abused, it could pose a great threat to basic civil rights.

  However, he said completion of disaster legislation is more important than the emergency order law. "The aim of an emergency order is to make up for deficiencies of laws.

  "What would we need it for if we already had laws to deal with disasters," Lee asked.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    US to deliver 10 new F-16s, source says

  • 2

    Taiwan blacklists Huawei and SMIC

  • 3

    Ma Ying-jeou’s forum speech regrettable, MAC says

  • 4

    Coco Gauff falls in Berlin after French Open victory

  • 5

    Costa Rica sent officials to train in Taipei, report says