Wed, Aug 07, 2024 page2

• Experts give arguments in oversight law case

  BACK-AND-FORTH: Witnesses mostly argued over the constitutionality of passing the amendments with a show of hands and whether it followed the legislature’s rules

  • Staff writer, with CNA
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The Constitutional Court yesterday heard arguments in a case involving the constitutionality of amendments to government oversight laws, with expert witnesses disagreeing on whether the legislative process was so flawed it should be declared void by the court.

  The deliberation that led up to the passage of the amendments, which took effect on June 26, was fundamentally flawed because lawmakers approved the revisions by raising their hands and the names of the voters were not recorded, said expert witness Chang Wen-chen (張文貞), a law professor at National Taiwan University.

  Chang cited a constitutional ruling in 2000, which said that such a voting method “contravened the principle of openness and transparency” and constituted “manifest and gross procedural flaws.”

  

  The Constitutional Court yesterday holds a hearing in Taipei to hear arguments in a case involving amendments to government oversight laws.

  Photo: CNA

  In the 2000 ruling (Constitutional Interpretation No. 499), the court deemed the constitutional amendments adopted a year prior by the now-defunct National Assembly unconstitutional due in part to the use of secret ballots during the deliberation.

  The oversight laws should be considered “quasi-constitutional statutes” as they “directly affected” the responsibilities of top government bodies stipulated in the Constitution, Chang said.

  The case was brought to court by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus, the Executive Yuan, President William Lai (賴清德) and the Control Yuan in a bid to reject the oversight laws.

  The amendments to the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法) and the Criminal Code were pushed through by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers at the end of May. The Constitutional Court issued an injunction that halted the enforcement of some revisions, including those that would give legislators much broader investigative powers.

  Responding to Chang’s arguments, expert witness Ed Huang (黃銘輝), an associate professor at National Taipei University’s Department of Law, said the oversight laws did not apply the “vigorous” views adopted in the 2000 ruling and that the Constitutional Court should instead consider the 1994 ruling (Constitutional Interpretation No. 342) on the Organic Act of the National Security Council (國家安全會議組織法).

  That ruling highlighted the court’s adherence to the “principle of legislative autonomy,” according to which the court should respect the legislature as an entity that operates under its own rules and procedures, Huang said.

  The ruling also said the court should intervene only in the event of major flaws in the legislative process, defined as those that “can be determined ... without investigation into the facts,” Huang said.

  Although the oversight laws were passed by lawmakers raising their hands in approval, they were legitimate according to the legislature’s rules of procedure, TPP caucus whip Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) said.

  Neither electronic nor recorded voting is a “default rule” in the legislative process, he added.

  However, attorney Chen Peng-kwang (陳鵬光), representing the DPP caucus, said that electronic and recorded voting had been adopted in the legislative process “by convention” for the past three decades.

  The passage of the oversight amendments was an exception, because Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) contravened long-standing convention and disregarded the principle of openness and transparency, Chen said.

  The oral arguments, which lasted until 5pm, also touched upon updated measures that expand the legislature’s investigative powers and require the president to periodically address the legislature and then take questions.

  The case is being presided over by 15 justices, who were all appointed by former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the DPP.

  Under the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法), the approval of at least eight justices is required for any of the amendments to be annulled.

  The court should rule on te case within three months of the conclusion of oral arguments, but the deadline can be extended by two months if necessary.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Suspect and two more dead after attacks in Taipei

  • 2

    Post office, driver’s license changes coming

  • 3

    Car blast kills Russian general hours after US talks

  • 4

    Events get extra security after Taipei knife attacks

  • 5

    Police to be deployed to crowded areas