Taiwan’s legal system has undergone rapid reforms during the nation’s democratization over the past 30 years. Some of them involved necessary changes that people found hard to promote, and the “pyramidization” of criminal proceedings is one of them.
The first National Conference on Judicial Reform in 1999 decided to strengthen the first instance, make the second instance ex post facto and have the third adopt strict trial of law.
This direction was correct and can solve long-term problems in Taiwan’s criminal proceedings, such as lengthy procedures and court proceedings becoming mere formality, with some cases even becoming stuck in the quagmire of the court system for several decades.
However, the attempt to implement this reform immediately after the decision was made aroused concerns from the legal profession and judicial reform groups. They argued that it would take time to build a solid first instance. Otherwise, once the third instance was tightened and the second instance of appeal was restricted, a large number of cases would be piled up in the first instance.
In the end, the reform was suspended, as there was insufficient personnel and capacity at that time to deal with the first instance for the new system. If sudden implementation had gone ahead as originally planned, it would have been the public and defendants that would have had to pay the price.
By 2017, the second National Conference on Judicial Reform once again concluded that a “pyramid system” should be adopted in criminal proceedings, and required the Judicial Yuan to achieve this goal by 2025.
Between the two conferences, the first instance of criminal proceedings in Taiwan has undergone tremendous changes, including the introduction of a cross-examination system, revitalization of court activities of the first instance, the establishment of a legal aid system to protect the defendants’ right to defense and changing the first instance from the single-judge adjudication system to collegial court system.
At the same time, the role of the third instance had been gradually adjusted to transform into a real trial of law, in line with the system of grand chambers, to reduce the involvement of the Supreme Court in the judgement of facts, and to highlight its function of unifying interpretation of laws and correcting violations of litigation procedures.
Overdue for more than two decades, the Judicial Yuan finally proposed a draft amendment for the pyramidization of criminal proceedings. As a member of the National Conference on Judicial Reform, I am very pleased.
The draft would build a pyramidal structure of the court system and make the third instance a real trial of law. How should it be done? The solution proposed by the Judicial Yuan is to adjust the grounds for appeal to the third instance and add a discretionary review.
To be more specific, the original grounds of appeal of the third instance will be divided into two parts, with one part remaining in the grounds of appeal, and the other moved to the discretionary review.
It means that correct judgement and procedural fairness would be ensured, yet should there be cases not meeting the requirements as grounds for appeal, the exception can be made in the discretionary review to allow the parties to appeal.
The amendment has unexpectedly drawn voices of opposition, saying that the Judicial Yuan was “smuggling” the discretionary review into the bill to “allow the Supreme Court to choose cases.”
This opinion derives from a misunderstanding. If the grounds for appeal of the third instance are not adjusted, the number of cases for the third instance would still be overwhelming, and could turn the court system into cylinder-shaped or even inverted-triangle-shaped, far from being a pyramidal structure.
However, if there is no discretionary review, but to reduce the grounds for the third-instance appeal, the impact on the parties would be even more unfavorable. Discretionary review is actually to open another door of appeals, rather than closing the window of appeals.
All the legal system proposals have an adaptation period. Since pyramidization of proceedings is the only way to go, adjusting the ground of appeal coupled with the discretionary review can be a solution. Or, if one disagrees, they can put forward more appropriate suggestions to reduce the number of third-instance cases, instead of halting the progress of amending the law. Otherwise, is it not legislative fraud to refuse to adjust the structure of the third instance now that the first instance has been expanded to a collegial system for 20 years?
Legal practitioners and academics should review the bill together and cooperate to promote the amendment, so that it would be in line with the resolutions of the two judicial reform conferences and the expectations of all walks of life for proceeding reform.
Carol Lin is a distinguished professor of law at National Chiao Tung University’s School of Law and a member of the National Conference on Judicial Reform.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS