The Taiwan-based Judicial Reform Foundation (司改會) issued a statement on the 24th regarding the second reading of the parliamentary reform bill in the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China. The foundation raised four major concerns, pointing out that the Kuomintang (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) should address the constitutional and legal doubts surrounding the bill and immediately halt the continuation of the legislative proceedings and voting in the Yuan.
The foundation’s late-night statement highlighted the flaws in the process of the KMT and PFP proposing drafts such as the “Legislative Yuan Exercise of Powers Act” through a motion for revision on the 21st. Despite the foundation’s statement on procedural flaws, the two parties persisted in voting on their version item by item to complete the third reading on the 22nd. In response, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus publicly stated that if the KMT and PFP insisted on passing the bill, they would not rule out filing a constitutional lawsuit.
Given the significant public interest involved in this legislation and the lack of substantive discussion, the Judicial Reform Foundation, as a civic organization dedicated to legal affairs and judicial reform, deemed it necessary to publicly address the doubts arising from each provision of the bill. Upon reviewing the versions jointly proposed by the KMT and PFP, the foundation found numerous doubts that violated legal principles and even the constitution. Therefore, if the DPP caucus were to file a constitutional lawsuit and seek temporary injunctions, it is likely that certain provisions of the bill proposed by the KMT and PFP would be declared unconstitutional, further exacerbating the political polarization and chaos among factions.
The foundation emphasized that the majority party failed to complete the second reading procedure on the 24th due to the lengthy voting process in the Legislative Yuan, leading to severe backlash from civil society and triggering protests by around 100,000 people around the Yuan. In response to the second reading of the parliamentary reform bill in the Legislative Yuan, the foundation raised four major doubts.
First, the foundation raised concerns about the part on contempt of parliament in the draft. The reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s Interpretation No. 585 mentioned that regarding the use of reasonable compulsory measures for investigation rights, it should fall within the scope of “administrative penalties.” However, the drafts proposed by the KMT and PFP use “criminal penalties” as a means, exceeding the doubt on the explanation from the Constitutional Court. Additionally, the provision that administrative officials could be found guilty in a committee or questioning process and not require a Yuan resolution raises questions on the accountability of administrative officials in case of incorrect answers due to misleading information provided by legislative members.
Secondly, the creation of the power to “question the President” not found in the Constitution raises concerns. Taiwan’s governance system adopts a dual executive system where the President is elected by the people and appoints the premier to lead the cabinet accountable to the parliament based on the constitution. The President and the parliament both have independent popular mandates, with the president not directly accountable to the parliament, and the constitution and its amendments do not include provisions that legislators can question the president. Requiring the President to provide “immediate answers” to parliamentary inquiries goes beyond the concept of a State of the Nation address and conflicts with the country’s constitutional framework.
Both the United States and France do not mandate “immediate answers” as a form of oral response. For instance, the U.S. Constitution requires the President to report on the State of the Union to Congress, which has evolved into an annual State of the Union address. The French Constitution stipulates that when exercising the right to address the nation, the President can choose between a written report or address to the parliament, but neither country employs an “immediate answer” format, and there is no system for members of parliament to question or interrogate the President.
Thirdly, the unclear language concerning the “counter-questioning” or “other actions of contempt towards the parliament” raises doubts. Regarding the provision that “persons who provide false statements during questioning could be criminally prosecuted,” determining the criminal responsibility in such cases poses challenges. The public disclosure of confidential information should follow legal procedures, and the persons being questioned may not necessarily have the authority to disclose it publicly. Thus, administrative officials may find it difficult during oral questioning in the Legislative Yuan to decide whether to make information public on the spot. Refusal to answer could lead to unilateral sanctions, while disclosure could violate confidentiality obligations, resulting in a dilemma and conflicting obligations. Additionally, legislators may not have the expertise to make judgments on confidential matters.
Lastly, the incomplete design of the hearing system risks being abused in practice. The relevant provisions regarding hearings allow for the invitation of “relevant individuals in society” alongside government officials, who cannot refuse without valid reasons and may face fines of NT$10,000 to NT$100,000. This part of the legislation is vague in intention, overly broad in its coverage, and lacks proper legal procedures. While there are grounds to refuse to testify, there is a lack of clear standards and methods for judgment. This testimony mechanism may devolve into a situation where both sides present their narratives, individuals face penalties for not answering, and then resort to administrative courts for redress.
Article 59-4 of the “Legislative Yuan Exercise of Powers Act” from the second reading specifies that government officials invited to attend or individuals in society related to an investigation must obtain the chair’s permission to be accompanied by a lawyer. This imbalance in the system violates the right of the parties concerned to legal assistance.
The Judicial Reform Foundation called on all parties in the Legislative Yuan to engage in rational dialogue and refrain from passing controversial legislation without substantive discussions. Additionally, the foundation made two strong appeals:
1. The KMT and PFP should acknowledge the various procedural and substantive constitutional and legal doubts regarding the proposed bills and immediately cease the legislative proceedings and voting.
2. The three parliamentary parties should recognize the fervent expectations of the people for parliamentary reform and negotiate appropriate legislative procedures and a timeline for passage.