The proposed amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法) are yet another attempt by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators to destroy the constitutional order and introduce chaos in the government.
Some believe that the changes would paralyze the Constitutional Court, causing Taiwan’s democracy to regress.
Fortunately, the proposed amendments were returned to the Legislative Yuan’s Procedure Committee, and it remains to be seen whether KMT Legislator-at-large Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) would take any follow-up action.
NEW COURT SYSTEM
Under the new system of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, which went into effect on Jan. 4, 2022, the Council of Grand Justices was replaced by the Constitutional Court, which consists of 15 grand justices.
The proceedings became those of a full-fledged court of law, which not only examines whether a case itself is unconstitutional, but also determines whether due process was followed.
AVOIDING ‘TEARS’
Judicial Yuan President and Constitutional Court Chief Justice Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) said at the Judicial Yuan on the day the new system took effect that it gave the justices the authority to adjudicate on unconstitutional judgements, meaning they could avoid situations in which justices have to “dismiss a case in tears.”
The normal operation of the Constitutional Court is conducive to the development of democracy and constitutional government.
TYPES OF SUPERVISION
There are three types of constitutional supervision systems in modern countries:
The first is supervision by the highest state authority, such as the French Senate, established under its constitutions of 1799 and 1852.
The second is supervision by the judiciary. For example, in the UK and the US, the system of judicial review is carried out by ordinary courts, as they have not set up constitutional courts.
The third is supervision by special authorities, which refers to the supervisory system in which a special authority examines the constitutionality of laws, regulations, administrative orders and other normative documents in accordance with specific procedures, and has the power to revoke unconstitutional items.
This type of system is mainly practiced in civil law countries, with Germany being the prime example.
Interpretations of the now-defunct Council of Justice and judgements of the Constitutional Court are “supervision by special authorities,” although the situation in Germany is different.
The German Federal Constitutional Court has wide jurisdiction and can decide its budget independently, under Article 28 of the German Federal Budget Code. Moreover, it runs a unique system to select its 16 judges.
RESTRAINTS
In Taiwan, the Constitutional Court’s budget and the appointment of the grand justices are subject to the power and consent of the Legislative Yuan, which can easily be manipulated by a party that controls a legislative majority, or two parties working together to form a majority, as was the case with the proposed amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act.
The Constitutional Court should operate normally and bring constitutional justice into play so that democracy can be strengthened.
Chen Yi-nan is an arbitrator.
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
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS