The Constitutional Court on Wednesday last week held a preparatory hearing for an injunction request to halt the enforcement of controversial new amendments to government oversight laws.
Constitutional Court oral arguments are scheduled for Aug. 6 on the constitutionality of amendments to the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法) and the Criminal Code, which were passed on May 28 by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers.
The amendments were signed into law on June 24 and promulgated on June 26.
However, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus, the Executive Yuan, President William Lai (賴清德) and the Control Yuan separately filed for a ruling on the constitutionality of the amendments, and also petitioned for an injunction.
Fifteen Constitutional Court justices were present at the hearing, which was broadcast live, and legal representatives of the four petitioners and the Legislative Yuan presented their claims and counterclaims.
Legal representatives of the four petitioners said the amendments have major flaws and are likely to cause irreparable harm to the Constitutional order.
They said the amendments pose dangers to the semi-presidential system, the separation of powers, responsible politics, and the judiciary and Control Yuan’s investigative and adjudicative powers, while the disclosure of confidential government information would cause irreparable harm.
The legislature’s representatives said the amendments aim to strengthen popular sovereignty, responsible politics and improve the quality of the Legislative Yuan’s decisions.
The amendments would not cause any irreparable harm to the constitutional order, they said.
After the three-hour hearing, some KMT lawmakers said they did not have enough time to prepare and the Cabinet should not be allowed to file for a Constitutional interpretation after the legislature rejected its request for reconsideration.
Some KMT lawmakers complained that the legislature’s representatives were asked by a justice whether lawmakers have legal supremacy over the Executive Yuan and the Constitutional Court.
TPP caucus whip Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) failed to answer a justice’s question on the definition of “counterquestioning” which was mentioned in the amendments.
It is concerning that KMT and TPP lawmakers are already trying to discredit the justices, with Huang beginning his presentation by showing a slide that reads “court justices shouldn’t be the guardian deity of a certain political party,” and telling reporters that the “host, cohost and referees” are on the same side and “everyone who watched the broadcast could see the justices had a stance.”
KMT Legislator Wu Tsung-hsien (吳宗憲) said it was unfair that the four petitioners had more representatives in total than the legislature, while fellow KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) said it was an unfair trial, which the opposition parties did not have time to prepare for, and they felt “besieged.”
However, ironically, the opposition’s amendments require the president and public officials to immediately answer their questions with no time to prepare.
Despite tens of thousands of protesters’ and hundreds of legal experts’ calls to halt the amendments so that there could be sufficient discussion, the opposition passed them. When asked by a reporter about the definition of “counterquestioning,” Wu said the opposition would “properly explain [the definition] to the people after the bills become laws,” underlining the ambiguity of the amendments.
The opposition lawmakers’ remarks only highlight how they rushed to push through the amendments, disregarding any calls for further deliberation.
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