The Council of Grand Justices released Constitutional Interpretation no. 665 on Oct. 16. Most of the justices agreed that combining former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) cases and his long-term detention were constitutional. However, six of the justices voiced partly or wholly differing opinions. The biggest controversy was whether the Taipei District Court’s change of judges in Chen’s trial after the combining of the cases violated the principle of legally competent judges.
Some justices believe the court’s case assignment guidelines are based on the principle of judicial autonomy. Since only the judge in a given case has the authority to reassign it by applying to have it combined with a related case presided over by another judge, neither the court president nor the chief judge can arbitrarily interfere with case assignment. Compared with Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) regarding the combination of related cases that are subject to the jurisdiction of several courts, these guidelines put more emphasis on judicial autonomy.
Other justices believed such internal court guidelines treat case combination and the changing of judges as internal affairs, thus violating the principle of legal reservation. This lacks fairness, justice and transparency, violating guarantees of the public’s litigation rights. They are therefore unconstitutional.
A verdict is credible because a trial is fair. Because of this credibility, the public are willing to accept verdicts and therefore obey the law. Fairness is therefore fundamental. The Constitution stipulates the autonomy of judges and protects their status in the hope that they will reject external interference to make fair and conscientious rulings. The Constitution gives the public litigation rights and guarantees the right to a fair trial.
Although the principle of legally competent judges is not explicitly stated in Taiwanese legislation, the concept of “legal jurisdiction” in Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that “a court of the place where an offence is committed or where an accused is domiciled, located, or resides shall have jurisdiction.”
This is designed to avoid possible manipulation of case assignment. Also, the concept of “jurisdiction transfer” in Article 10 of the code states that an immediately superior court shall transfer a case to another court when an unfair trial is likely to occur. Such efforts are made for the sake of fairness. I believe the legally competent judge principle is not the core of the problem because it is merely one of the measures for a fair trial.
Do the Taipei District Court’s guidelines really violate the fair trial principle? Most justices believe they do not. Still, fairness is emotional rather than formal.
If procedures are not transparent enough, the public may feel manipulation has occurred or that the verdict is unfair, thus damaging the judiciary’s credibility, as well as the court’s role as an institution for fair trials.
I agree that the court must draw up guidelines for internal duty assignment but it is unfortunate that mainstream opinion rarely takes in the viewpoint of those involved in a case, especially that of an accused.
District courts have their own guidelines for case assignment but assignment and case combination are inconsistent. The only agreement is that an accused cannot express an opinion on case combination. However, the accused bear the consequences so they must be informed about case combination prior to the fact, be given the chance to express their opinions during the process and the opportunity to express dissent afterward.
Such procedural protection will dispel public doubts.
Carol Lin is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of Technology Law at National Chiao Tung University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS