Prosecutors in Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) corruption case filed a request for his detention on suspicion of accepting bribes and profiteering. The Taipei District Court judge rejected the request for a number of reasons.
First, Ko is not a member of the Taipei Urban Planning Commission. Second, he lacks relevant expertise. Third, he trusted the majority resolution and the opinions of former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng (彭振聲). Fourth, although increasing the floor-area-ratio (FAR) of the Core Pacific City project was illegal, there is space for reasonable interpretation.
The judge concluded that the evidence was insufficient to confirm whether Ko knew his actions were illegal and that the likelihood of conviction was not high, and ruled to release him without bail. However, the Taipei City District Court failed to elaborate on whether Ko contravened his duties by accepting bribes. That headache would be left for the High Court to handle on appeal.
According to the Taiwan High Administrative Court’s July 2020 decision, the Core Pacific City project’s FAR of 560 percent was a one-time guarantee, and the Core Pacific City’s appeal was rejected. This administrative court decision, a win for the Taipei City Government, restricted the project’s FAR to 560 percent. It was not a piece of scrap paper. Can the Taipei mayor just give away an additional 20 percent FAR with his signature? On what legal basis is that allowed? Did Ko really not understand the illegality of his actions? Can he truly claim that he was unaware of the existence of such an important verdict? For the winner of a case to pay reparations to the losing party — in the form of a 20 percent increase in FAR — without any form of benefit or repayment is just absurd. Is a battle where the winner pays the loser one worth fighting? This is just common sense; it does not require any expertise.
The judge indicated that the Taipei City Government’s 2021 decision to increase the project’s FAR by 20 percent was illegal, but it failed to review this key administrative court ruling. If he had, perhaps there would have been a different outcome.
The Court Organization Act (法院組織法) only stipulates the number of judges required after indictment, but it does not outline how many judges should rule on pre-indictment detention hearings. In practice, all court administrative regulations stipulate that one judge makes an independent ruling. This is extremely dangerous and irresponsible because the details of corruption cases are often quite complex and not immediately made apparent.
Even after years and years of a trial, a judge might not necessarily make an accurate decision. Judges in detention hearings are not superhuman.
How could they be expected to finish reading more than 1,000 pages of documents, completely digest their contents, and come up with the references for a well-backed decision in just a few hours? Who would believe such extraordinary abilities?
Therefore, judicial reform should start by addressing institutional flaws. Regulations should be amended to replace the single-judge system. Detention hearings of high-profile criminal cases should have three judges that work collaboratively and make a joint decision. This would help avoid unnecessary detentions and reduce the longstanding problem of a legal system with ever-changing phases and inconsistent interpretations. Otherwise, deciding whether to detain someone would continue to resemble a game of table tennis (take the case of former vice premier Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦), which bounced back and forth three times). How else would the judicial system earn the public’s trust?
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Recently, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) hastily pushed amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) through the Legislative Yuan, sparking widespread public concern. The legislative process was marked by opaque decisionmaking and expedited proceedings, raising alarms about its potential impact on the economy, national defense, and international standing. Those amendments prioritize short-term political gains at the expense of long-term national security and development. The amendments mandate that the central government transfer about NT$375.3 billion (US$11.47 billion) annually to local governments. While ostensibly aimed at enhancing local development, the lack
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) — who once endured the hardship of living under an authoritarian political system and arduously led a quiet revolution — once said: “Democratic issues must be solved with democratic means.” Today, as Taiwanese are faced with the malicious subversion of our country’s democratic constitutional order, we must not panic. Rather, we should start by taking democratic action to rescue the Constitutional Court. As Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) leads the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) in strangling Taiwan’s judiciary and depriving individuals of the right to recall and development, Taiwanese
RSS