The Constitutional Court on Friday ruled that most of the amendments passed by the legislature to expand its powers of oversight over the executive branch of government are unconstitutional — a major setback for the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP).
After securing a combined majority of legislative seats in February, KMT and TPP legislators drafted the amendments to give themselves investigative powers — to summon government officials and members of the public to testify and provide documents, or else face penalties — and compelling the president to deliver a state of the nation address to the legislature and take questions from them.
The KMT and TPP said the amendments were a “reform” to bolster legislative oversight and information access, but they sparked controversy as many people were concerned that they were a legislative “power grab,” as lawmakers could weaponize the expanded power to intimidate and punish political rivals, and their unfettered document access might jeopardize national security and individual privacy.
The amendments were passed in May and went into effect on June 26, but the Constitutional Court in July issued an injunction to suspend several parts of the amendments.
Friday’s ruling came as a relief to many. However, KMT lawmakers, supported by the TPP, had already started their “backup plan.” The Legislative Yuan on Monday last week passed a preliminary review on a drafted amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法), proposed by KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), specifying that “the total number of incumbent justices” means “15” — the full number of seats on the court. The legislature last month passed a second reading of another amendment to the act, also proposed by Weng, to raise the threshold for Constitutional Court rulings and injunctions to “a two-thirds majority” of the total incumbent justices.
Currently, a Constitutional Court ruling is passed with a two-thirds quorum of incumbent justices and agreement by a simple majority of the quorum. However, if the two drafted amendments are passed, it would require a two-thirds quorum of the full court (10 justices) and agreement from at least two-thirds (seven justices) of the quorum.
The two amendments might not be a big concern to many, but considering that seven of the current justices are set to retire on Thursday, and the legislature dominated by the KMT and TPP has yet to review the nominated candidates, that leaves only eight remaining justices, below the quorum to even hold a hearing.
Serious concerns have been raised that the Constitutional Court could become paralyzed. If the KMT and TPP take this path, it would threaten the normal functioning of Taiwan’s democracy and constitutional system, as it deprives the public of their right to seek a last resort to justice, as well as tip the balance of the separation of powers, as there would be no court to handle disputes between government agencies or check abuses of power.
As the highest court, the Constitutional Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that government branches recognize the limits of their own power. It ensures that even popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm unpopular minorities or undermine the fundamental values guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution.
The KMT does not seem to care about Taiwan’s constitutional system of government, or intends to paralyze it, as it refuses to review the proposed annual budget. Its legislative caucus on Saturday even blatantly disregarded the court’s ruling as “unconstitutional” and said it is “not obliged to comply with the ruling.”
Facing lawmakers who disrespect the constitutional system and only want to fire the referees (the justices) when they lose the game (the constitutional interpretation), voters should scrutinize whether they are reliable representatives who can speak for the public or merely representatives of a party, willing to sabotage the nation’s development for personal or partisan interests.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS