On January 7th, various organizations in Taiwan, including Taiwan Public Policy Institute and Taiwan Think Tank, jointly held a symposium to discuss the topic of “Constitutional Crisis: Resolving Taiwan’s Institutional Stalemate from the Perspective of Constitutional Litigation Law.” Scholars and experts were invited to participate in the discussion, highlighting the controversy surrounding legislative amendments in the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution.
The ROC Constitutional Court faced turmoil at the end of 2025 when the opposition party forcefully pushed for amendments to the Constitutional Litigation Law. Additionally, President Lai Ching-te’s nominations for grand justices were repeatedly blocked by the opposition party in the Legislative Yuan, resulting in vacancies that went unfilled for nearly a year, causing a standstill in addressing various constitutional disputes arising from legislative and administrative actions.
Despite the opposition party lawmakers passing amendments to the Constitutional Litigation Law, raising the threshold for grand justice evaluations, the Constitutional Court issued the “Judgment of Constitutional Interpretation No. 1 of 2025” on December 19, 2025, declaring the unconstitutional invalidation of the amended law passed in December 2024. The Constitutional Court has since resumed full operations at the beginning of 2026.
The Judicial Reform Foundation stated that this ruling can prevent the legislative branch from overriding judicial authority, restoring its function to check legislative and executive abuses of power in line with the principle of separation of powers. They called for public support for the Constitutional Court and endorsement of this ruling.
During the symposium, Dr. Chen Fang-yu, Associate Professor of Political Science at Soochow University, emphasized the importance for citizens in a democratic society to understand constitutional matters thoroughly. Over 90% of cases handled by grand justices involve citizens holding the government accountable for safeguarding their rights. Paralyzing the Constitutional Court would have significant repercussions on the public.
Director Guo Mei-cen of Taiwan Think Tank Polling and Public Opinion Center noted that since February 2024, the 11th Legislative Yuan has passed many bills contrary to the existing constitution while simultaneously obstructing the Constitutional Court with amendments to the Constitutional Litigation Law, leading Taiwan into an unprecedented institutional stalemate. Even with the recent resumption of Constitutional Court operations despite understaffing, concerns remain among some grand justices and academia about the legitimacy of the court’s reactivation under the amended law, particularly as the only constitutional dispute stemmed from legislative amendments over the past year.
Addressing the specifics, Dr. Tsai Jung-hsiang, Professor of Political Science at Chung Cheng University, analyzed the legislative process and the content of the amendments. He pointed out that while grand justices generally try not to intervene in legislative proceedings, they must step in to provide legal interpretations when significant flaws are evident in the legislative process. In the recent 114 Interpretation No. 1 judgment, the grand justices found notable flaws such as the lack of substantive discussions on different versions and absence of legislative reasoning.
Additionally, Dr. Tsai highlighted discrepancies in the amended law, particularly focusing on Article 30, which stipulates requirements for grand justices’ attendance. The provision set two absolute majorities, a unique scenario worldwide. This amendment has sparked considerable controversy.
Dr. Lin Chia-ho, Associate Professor of Law at National Chengchi University, stressed that democracy’s primary function is conflict resolution, which necessitates mechanisms to address political disputes. Traditionally, the executive and legislative branches act as checks and balances, with the judiciary serving as a neutral arbiter post-World War II in democratic countries. It is crucial to have an institution overseeing the effective operation of the constitution—in Taiwan, this role falls to the Constitutional Court. The dysfunction resulting from the amended Constitutional Litigation Law serves as a significant warning.
Dr. Lin noted that “judicial attacks” are not unique to Taiwan, as it is considered relatively consolidated in the third wave of democratic countries. Many nations have regressed to authoritarian systems, with indicators like “destroying the judiciary” preceding such a shift. The amendment to the Constitutional Litigation Law is not just an ill-considered change but a deliberate move, as paralyzing the judiciary marks the initial step towards undermining democratic governance. Reflecting on President Tsai Ing-wen’s early days in office when the Chinese Communist Party hinted at Lebanonizing Taiwan, it is crucial to draw parallels and make informed judgments based on Taiwan’s current situation.