Experts Endorse Court Ruling, Reinforcing Constitutional Integrity

Over 1,000 academics and legal professionals have expressed their support for the recent ruling by the Constitutional Court of Taiwan, which declared that amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act passed in December 2022 are unconstitutional. This ruling reinforces the principle of separation of powers and mandates transparency in the legislative process.

Background of the Ruling

On December 20, 2022, the Legislative Yuan enacted amendments requiring that at least ten justices participate in constitutional deliberations and that a minimum of nine justices must concur to declare any law unconstitutional. These amendments took effect on January 25, 2023. However, the court’s recent determination found that these changes introduced “obvious and significant defects” in the legislative process, thereby violating constitutional principles.

As of October 31, 2023, seven of the fifteen justices had completed their terms, leading to a lack of quorum for many deliberations. President William Lai faced opposition in his attempts to nominate replacements for these vacant positions, resulting in a protracted period without a full bench of justices.

Support from Civil Society

In a joint statement titled “Democracy must not regress, constitutional rulings must be followed,” various civic groups, legal experts, and academics rallied behind the court’s decision. As of last Friday, 96 civic organizations, 603 lawyers, and 690 academics had signed the petition, which included 651 university professors and researchers, among them 132 legal scholars.

The statement emphasizes that when the legislative process undermines transparency and public engagement, such actions become unconstitutional. It calls for lawmakers to respect the principles of democracy and not misuse majority power during legislative deliberations.

The ruling notably delineates the boundaries between judicial and legislative powers, ensuring that the Constitutional Court remains functional and independent from the influence of the Legislative Yuan. The court asserted that it is only bound by a constitutionally valid procedure act.

Furthermore, the statement addressed concerns regarding the absence of some justices from deliberation meetings, suggesting this gap has diminished public confidence in the court’s integrity. It posited that the three justices who did not participate should be viewed as having voluntarily recused themselves from the process.

Opposition Response

In contrast, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has filed malfeasance charges against the five justices who ruled on the case. The opposition argues that the ruling was rendered without sufficient justices, either according to the ten-justice minimum set by the recent amendments or the two-thirds requirement based on the previous version of the act.

The unfolding situation highlights the ongoing tensions between the legislative and judicial branches in Taiwan, as the nation grapples with the implications of the court’s ruling on its democratic framework.