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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS