Media reports have said that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) might pardon former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) before her term ends on Monday next week. The idea is not without controversy. Putting political considerations aside, there are a number of legal issues.
Article 3 of the Amnesty Act (赦免法) states: “After a pardon is granted to a person subject to a pronouncement of offense and punishment, the execution of the punishment is waived; under special circumstances, the pronouncement of offense and punishment may be deemed a nullity.”
In most previous pardon cases, the punishment was waived, but the guilty verdict remained. The verdict might be annulled only when the ruling is deemed unjust and the litigant requests an appeal or extraordinary appeal.
In 2015, Bunun hunter Tama Talum was found guilty of contravening the Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act (槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例) because he hunted and killed a Reeves’ muntjac for his mother. Although Tsai granted Talum a pardon, the conviction remained until the then-prosecutor-general requested an extraordinary appeal for him.
There might also be problems if the offense and punishment are waived at the same time. Su Pin-kun (蘇炳坤) was framed as the perpetrator of a jewelry store robbery in 1985 and received a presidential pardon — waiving both conviction and punishment — from Chen in 2000.
However, due to that pardon, Su’s retrial request and compensation for wrongful imprisonment were rejected, and he was not vindicated by the court until 2019.
As for the pardon for Chen, the main problem is whether the scope of the pronouncement includes undetermined cases, as Article 3 of the Amnesty Act does not stipulate its effectiveness as clearly as Article 2. Article 2 stipulates that if an amnesty is issued, those who have not been convicted of an offense cannot be further prosecuted for that offense.
Nonetheless, as Article 3 of the Amnesty Act does not stipulate the requirement, scope and applicable object for pardon, any legal cases, including as-yet unprosecuted cases, could be subject to a pardon.
Nevertheless, if Tsai does grant Chen a pardon including for unprosecuted cases, this would imply that presidential power is overriding judicial power, and even entails the presumption of guilt, which would open it up to political disagreements.
Thus, Tsai could only grant a pardon to the determined parts in Chen’s case. Confiscation is another issue in this case. Confiscation has become an independent punishment since 2016, while it was an accessory punishment under criminal sanctions in the past and at the time of Chen’s prosecution.
Therefore, when Chen’s case was determined, confiscation was still an accessory punishment. If Tsai wants to exclude confiscation from the pardon, it needs a stronger justifiable cause.
Besides showing presidents’ kindness, the granting of pardon aims to correct miscarriages of justice. Perhaps, among the 37 death row inmates there are cases more fitting for review that Tsai or president-elect William Lai (賴清德) could turn their attention to.
Wu Ching-chin is a professor in Aletheia University’s Department of Law and director of its Criminal Law Research Center.
Translated by Chien Yan-ru
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS