The Constitutional Court is on Aug. 6 to hear oral arguments on executive oversight amendments passed by opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers and opposed by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
After the amendments became law on June 26, separate requests for a judicial ruling were filed by President William Lai (賴清德) as well as the Executive Yuan, the Control Yuan and the DPP’s legislative caucus.
Before ruling on the amendments’ constitutionality, the court would consider whether to approve an injunction blocking their enforcement. Attorneys and legal academics representing the DPP-affiliated petitioners, and surrogates selected by the KMT and TPP caucuses presented competing arguments at a preparatory hearing on the matter yesterday.
Photo: Liao Chen-huei, Taipei Times
Q1: What would be the main disputes in the Constitutional Court’s review of the case?
The court is tasked with determining whether the deliberation that led up to the amendments’ passage contained “palpable” and “sufficient” defects, as defined by the 1994 ruling on the legislative process of the Organic Act of the National Security Council (國安會組織法, Interpretation No. 342).
The Constitutional Court will also rule on whether the updated laws approved by the legislature on May 28 contravene the Constitution.
The revisions give the legislature new investigative powers, including the power to hold hearings, with public officials subject to fines and jail time if they refuse to attend hearings or provide information, or if they present false information.
The amendments also include provisions requiring the president to deliver an annual “state of the nation” address at the legislature and then field questions from the floor.
Q2: Why have different agencies petitioned the Constitutional Court?
In a rarity, the three top government agencies, all headed by DPP officials, have joined the party’s legislative caucus in seeking a judicial ruling.
Lyu Jheng-yan (呂政諺), head of the Judicial Reform Foundation’s Law and Policy Department, said it was mainly because the four parties were affected by different provisions in the amendments, and they hence petitioned the court separately based on their needs.
For example, the Control Yuan would contend the measures granting the Legislative Yuan extra powers would usurp its constitutionally bestowed investigative powers, he said.
Soochow University Department of Political Science academic Su Tzu-chiao (蘇子喬) said that the overlapping legal filings, which he described as “a barrage of arrows,” reflected the DPP’s intent to bolster its arguments that there were “serious violations of the Constitution.”
Q3: Is it constitutional for the Cabinet to take legal action after the legislature voted on June 21 to uphold the amendments sent for reconsideration?
Some, including KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫), have questioned the Cabinet’s decision, arguing that Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) “should immediately accept” the amendments following the June 21 vote, as per the Additional Articles of the Constitution.
However, Cabinet spokesman Chen Shih-kai (陳世凱) on June 27 told a news briefing that requesting the legislature’s reconsideration of the bills and seeking a constitutional ruling on the amendments were “two different constitutional procedures.”
The Cabinet had attempted to stop the amendments’ implementation by asking the legislature to vote on them once again, but the opposition lawmakers, who together hold a majority of seats, voted down the request on June 21.
According to the procedure, Lai signed the bills into law on June 24.
Lyu holds the same view as the Cabinet spokesman, adding that the executive body had petitioned with Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法) serving as its legal basis.
However, such a move by the Cabinet is unprecedented.
The Constitutional Court has only intervened twice to resolve disputes between the Cabinet and the legislature over laws passed by the latter, following lawmakers’ rejection of the Cabinet’s request for reconsideration of those laws.
These two instances were brought about by the passage of the Referendum Act (公民投票法) in 2003 and that of a special act to form a task force to investigate the assassination attempt on then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the DPP on March 19, 2004.
In both cases, it was the DPP legislative caucus that moved forward to seek a ruling on the constitutionality of the laws passed by a hung legislature.
Q4: How long would the Constitutional Court take to reach a ruling and would it be final?
The court should make a ruling within three months after the conclusion of oral arguments, but this deadline can be pushed back by two months if necessary, the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法) states.
For the amendments to be annulled, the case must be reviewed and approved in a majority decision by at least two-thirds of sitting justices.
Lyu said that justices might expedite the review of the disputes, given their “highly contentious” nature.
In the case of the Legislative Yuan’s initiative to probe the assassination attempt on Chen Shui-bian, a ruling (Interpretation No. 585) was handed down three months after the DPP legislative caucus filed its petition, Lu said.
In another case, which concerned mandatory fingerprinting for issuing ID cards, an injunction was granted 10 days after the court received the DPP caucus’ application, with a ruling (Interpretation No. 603) rendered approximately four months later, he said.
Su said justices would rule on the oversight laws case in about three months.
The 2000 case about ceasing the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City, took the court less than three months to reach a ruling (Interpretation No. 520), Su added.
Moreover, Lu said justices were more likely than not to strive to resolve the disputes before Oct. 31, when seven of them would step down after serving for eight years, to “ensure the stability of the constitutional system.”
Otherwise, the case is likely to drag on in the event the opposition-dominated legislature refuses to confirm seven new justices nominated by Lai, Lu said.
If the DPP is determined to reject the amendments, it can still mobilize the public to petition for national referendums — regardless of the Constitutional Court’s decision, Su added.
Q5: Who would be hearing the case and what are their backgrounds?
Barring any recusals, the 15 incumbent justices, all of whom were appointed by former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the DPP, would preside over the case.
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday rejected KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling’s (翁曉玲) requests that justices Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力), who is also president of the Judicial Yuan, and Hsu Chih-hsiung (許志雄) recuse themselves from the case.
Weng pointed to Hsu Tzong-li’s involvement in a 2004 case on the scope of legislative authority (Interpretation No. 585), arguing that he had opposed granting the legislature investigative powers.
Weng also said that Hsu Chih-hsiung had previously held senior positions in the DPP government, including serving as minister without portfolio in Chen Shui-bian’s administration.
However, the court in its decision — which was made without the participation of Hsu Tzong-li and Hsu Chih-hsiung — said that Weng did not provide sufficient evidence to establish “reasonable grounds for believing” that the two justices would be unable to perform their duties impartially.
Considering that most countries issue more than five denominations of banknotes, the central bank has decided to redesign all five denominations, the bank said as it prepares for the first major overhaul of the banknotes in more than 24 years. Central bank Governor Yang Chin-lung (楊金龍) is expected to report to the Legislative Yuan today on the bank’s operations and the redesign’s progress. The bank in a report sent to the legislature ahead of today’s meeting said it had commissioned a survey on the public’s preferences. Survey results showed that NT$100 and NT$1,000 banknotes are the most commonly used, while NT$200 and NT$2,000
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) yesterday reported the first case of a new COVID-19 subvariant — BA.3.2 — in a 10-year-old Singaporean girl who had a fever upon arrival in Taiwan and tested positive for the disease. The girl left Taiwan on March 20 and the case did not have a direct impact on the local community, it said. The WHO added the BA.3.2 strain to its list of Variants Under Monitoring in December last year, but this was the first imported case of the COVID-19 variant in Taiwan, CDC Deputy Director-General Lin Ming-cheng (林明誠) said. The girl arrived in Taiwan on
South Korea is planning to revise its controversial electronic arrival card, a step Taiwanese officials said prompted them to hold off on planned retaliatory measures, a South Korean media report said yesterday. A Yonhap News Agency report said that the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs is planning to remove the “previous departure place” and “next destination” fields from its e-arrival card system. The plan, reached after interagency consultations, is under review and aims to simplify entry procedures and align the electronic form with the paper version, a South Korean ministry official said. The fields — which appeared only on the electronic form
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) is suspending retaliation measures against South Korea that were set to take effect tomorrow, after Seoul said it is updating its e-arrival system, MOFA said today. The measures were to be a new round of retaliation after Taiwan on March 1 changed South Korea's designation on government-issued alien resident certificates held by South Korean nationals to "South Korea” from the "Republic of Korea," the country’s official name. The move came after months of protests to Seoul over its listing of Taiwan as "China (Taiwan)" in dropdown menus on its new online immigration entry system. MOFA last week
RSS