The Judicial Yuan is advocating the transformation of the civilian litigation system into a pyramid-like structure, with the majority of cases being tried in trials of the first and second instance, while reserving the judicial resources of the trial of third instance for cases involving major legal controversies.
As part of this initiative, the Judicial Yuan has been studying draft amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure that would reduce caseloads by significantly raising the requirements for the trying of civil cases on appeal, while at the same time ensuring that only viable cases, based on their merits, go through trials of the first and second instance.
This proposed reform was initially intended to reduce the length of trials, and to concentrate judicial resources on trials of the first and second instance to improve the quality of court rulings, which is indeed laudable.
However, in practice, according to 2020 statistics from the Supreme Court, about 30 percent of the rulings handed down by the court of second instance were thrown out or remanded on appeal during the trial of third instance.
That is, the Supreme Court ruled that about 30 percent of the judgements of the courts of second instance were found to be flawed and not in accordance with the law.
With the quality of decisions not up to standard, raising the threshold for third instance appeals is likely to result in more wrongful convictions being allowed to stand.
That is not to say that the pyramid structure for the litigation system proposed by the Judicial Yuan should not be pursued; however, attention should be paid to the establishment of supporting measures to address the concerns of placing unnecessary restrictions on the public’s right to litigation and to prevent flawed rulings resulting in more wrongful convictions.
To avoid wrongful convictions, the Judicial Yuan should look at ways to improve the quality of the first and second trial rulings.
Judges who preside over trials of first and second instance have caseloads so heavy that they are under considerable time pressure. The judges often do not have the time to handle cases in the detailed manner that they deserve.
The government should increase the number of trial judges so that they can devote more time and effort to the cases on their docket. The Judicial Yuan should also refer to how these matters are handled in other countries.
By bolstering the regulations pertaining to mandatory representation by lawyers, public defense and legal assistance in litigation cases, the Judicial Yuan would give lawyers more opportunities to intervene in litigation cases.
This could enhance the efficiency of litigation, improve the protection of the rights of the respective parties and reduce the occurrence of frivolous litigation.
All of this should considerably improve the quality of rulings in the first and second trials.
The structure of the judicial system is closely related to the rights and interests of the public in trials. The civil litigation reform bill proposed by the Judicial Yuan requires further discussion with all shareholders on how to improve the system.
Otherwise, even though the legislation is well-intentioned, the public might still suffer wrongful convictions if the reforms are flawed in practice, which would mean that people’s rights are not being protected.
Chris Chen is a lawyer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in the late 1980s and Russia seemed to be starting the process of democratization, 36-year-old US academic Francis Fukuyama had the audacity to assert that the world was at the “end of history.” Fukuyama claimed that democratic systems would become the norm, and peace would prevail the world over. He published a grandiose essay, “The End of History?” in the summer 1989 edition of the journal National Interest. Overnight, Fukuyama became a famous theorist in the US, western Europe, Japan and even Taiwan. Did the collapse of the Soviet Union mark the end of an era as
During a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo on Monday, US President Joe Biden for the third time intimated that the US would take direct military action to defend Taiwan should China attack. Responding to a question from a reporter — Would Washington be willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan? — Biden replied with an unequivocal “Yes.” As per Biden’s previous deviations from the script of the US’ longstanding policy of “strategic ambiguity” — maintaining a deliberately nebulous position over whether the US would intervene militarily in the event of a conflagration between Taiwan and
Will the US come to the defense of Taiwan if and when China makes its move? Like most friends of Taiwan, I’ve been saying “yes” for a couple decades. But the truth is that none of us, in or out of government, really know. This is precisely why we all need to show humility in our advice on how Taiwan should prepare itself for such an eventuality. After all, it’s their country, and they have no choice but to live with the consequences. A couple weeks ago the New York Times published an article that put this reality in stark relief. As
US President Joe Biden has done it again — for the third time in the past nine months he has stated that the US will defend Taiwan. And for the third time, his administration officials have rushed to “clarify” that US policy toward Taiwan “has not changed” and Washington still follows its “one China policy.” That is the same scenario that played out with two other presidents. When asked the question posed to Biden in 2001, then-US president George W. Bush said Washington would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression. In 2020, then-US president Donald Trump
RSS