Judicial power comes from the idea that sovereignty rests with the people and that courts must uphold the right to institute legal proceedings. Judges are guardians of the public’s rights and should abide by the Constitution and the law to protect the public’s rights. Decisions based on violations of legal procedure are illegitimate. The verdict in former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) corruption trial is therefore invalid, violating constitutional articles 80 and 16 and constitutional interpretation No. 530.
The legal principle of a “legally competent judge” is at the heart of Article 80, which prescribes a basis for ensuring a fair court. The concept of a legally competent judge is key to ensuring fairness when implementing Article 16, which ensures the right to institute legal proceedings as stated in articles 80 and 16 and in constitutional interpretation No. 530. Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) was not a legally competent judge for the Chen case.
The verdict also violates constitutional Article 8 and constitutional interpretations No. 384 and 392. Article 8 states that “no person shall be tried or punished otherwise than by a law court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.”
The term “competent court” referred to in constitutional interpretations No. 384 and 392 refers to a “tribunal composed of a judge or a panel of judges empowered to try cases.”
Legally competent judges can hear trials. However, Tsai was replaced by his superiors during the Chen trial and lacked the judicial power to preside over the case and the power to detain him.
The verdict also breaches constitutional interpretation No. 653. Constitutional Article 16 protects the right to institute legal proceedings. Citizens have the right to request a fair trial based on legitimate legal procedures, and no one should be deprived of this. These principles are explained in constitutional interpretation No. 653. While Chen is a former president, his guarantees to legitimate legal procedure and the right of personal freedom should be the same as any other citizen’s and may not be ignored or made stricter for him.
Additionally, the verdict violates Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that lists regulations for combining cases subject to the jurisdiction of several courts at the same level under one court. Based on the spirit of these regulations, cases in courts at the same level can be combined only following a ruling to this end. The change of judge during Chen’s trial was not based on such a ruling and breached the law.
Moreover, the verdict violates constitutional articles 78, 171, 172 and 173; Article 5, Paragraph 4 of the Additional Articles to the Constitution; and constitutional interpretations Nos. 371, 572 and 590. Consolidated trials are aimed at preventing disagreements over decisions and making proceedings more economical, but are mostly the result of the accused agreeing to a consolidated trial. If the accused disagrees, he must not be deprived of his right to a legally competent judge.
In terms of disputes over the constitutionality of a case, judges should actively seek and wait for a constitutional interpretation instead of relying on their own opinions to determine whether something is unconstitutional.
Finally, the verdict violates constitutional interpretation No. 418, which states: “Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to bring a lawsuit and the intent is to ensure that the people have the right to initiate lawsuits in accordance with the legal procedures and the right to a fair trial.”
Justice is not just about someone being pronounced guilty or not guilty — proper procedures should be followed and upheld.
Hung Ying-hua is a division chief judge in the Shilin District Court.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS