The Constitutional Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the 319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute (
It is not a far stretch to say that had the ruling been out just a couple of days before Dec. 11, the outcome of the extremely close legislative election race might have turned out different. This is, of course, all for the better, since now there is no reason for the pan-blue camp to accuse the Constitutional Court of succumbing to political pressure.
While the court's ruling did not find the 319 Statute illegal per se, it did find many, if not all, of the powers vested in the Truth Committee to be unconstitutional. In fact, it is probably fair to say the sting has been rightfully taken out of the Truth Committee, putting the power to investigate the March 19 shooting back into the hands of police and prosecutors -- a practice spelled out in the Constitution.
Of the provisions ruled to be unconstitutional, especially noteworthy are Articles 8 and 13, under which the Truth Committee was given not only the power of prosecutors but also an exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation. In fact, according to the said statute, prosecutors can only prosecute criminals under the direction of the Truth Committee.
It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the court found these provisions unconstitutional, as because they violated checks and balances on government powers -- particularly against the legislative branch -- since the power to investigate and prosecute criminal activity falls under the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.
Under the circumstances, it is indeed ironic that the Truth Committee on Monday issued a press release demanding that police hand over the investigation into the March 19 shooting based on Article 8 of the 319 Statute. Since it is not a secret that some members of the Truth Committee had long admitted the constitutional "flaw" of the article, one cannot help but wonder what could possibly be on the minds of the committee members in demanding to exercise an unconstitutional vested power. It is especially unforgivable given that the committee is supposedly comprised of members of the legal profession.
The court also found Article 13 of the Truth Committee Statute unconstitutional on the grounds that facts gathered by the Truth Committee may differ from those brought to the attention of the courts, and thus be grounds for a retrial should anyone be charged under the 319 Statute.
According to the Constitutional Court, its finding was based on the principle of equal protection of the law and that the committee's power exceeds the scope of legislature's investigative powers. Actually, a better way to put it is that the provision flat-out tramples on the power of the judiciary. It would be unthinkable if the Constitutional Court actually accepted such an incursion on judicial power.
In a nutshell, as pointed out by the Constitutional Court, no one denies that the Legislative Yuan has some measure of investigative power, but it should be limited. While the ruling does offer some insight on the nature of such powers, it failed to define their limitations -- which should come in handy in the backdrop of a continued pan blue legislative majority.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS