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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS