中文版原文連結

Today (October 18), the Legislative Yuan moved KMT Legislator Hsiao-Ling Weng’s proposed amendments to the “Constitutional Court Procedure Act” (Proposal 1) to a second reading. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Wu Tsung-Hsien issued a notice to amend the legislative agenda, scheduling a review of another Constitutional Court Procedure Act amendment proposed by Hsiao-Ling Weng (Proposal 2) for next Monday (October 21).

We believe that while the Legislative Yuan has the authority to reject the President’s nominees for Grand Justices,the reasonable operation of the Constitutional Court system warrants further discussion. However, introducing such amendments at a sensitive time, with the terms of nearly half of the Grand Justices nearing expiry, appears to be an attempt by the opposition party to unilaterally paralyze the judiciary by leveraging legislative power. This legislative move by the KMT raises concerns about using legal amendments to intimidate and influence the Constitutional Court’s judgment on the “Legislative Expansion/Reform Act.”

If these proposals are passed without appointing new Grand Justices, the Constitutional Court may face indefinite paralysis due to insufficient members. This would prevent the judiciary from monitoring and rectifying abuses of power by the executive, legislative, and even the presidency, potentially undermining the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law. Furthermore, these amendments also have severe impacts on the public’s right to litigation.

Judicial Reform Foundation , Covenants Watch, Taiwan Labour Front, Citizen Congress Watch, Taiwan Criminal Defense Attorney Association, Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, Environmental Rights Foundation, Taiwan Association for Human Rights, The League for Persons with Disabilities, Taiwan Forever Association, Taiwan Hong Kong for Democracy, Taiwan National Security Institute, Taiwan National Security Institute, Taiwan New Constitution Foundation, Environmental Jurists Association, National Association for Firefighters’ Rights(NAFR), Indigenous Youth Front, Taiwan Indigenous Youth Public Participation Association, Hong Kong Outlanders are among 19 organizations that collectively call on legislators to refrain from using the Constitutional Court Procedure Act as a political tool. We strongly condemn those who support these amendments and urge the public to pay close attention to this issue. We call on all political parties and legislators to reject these proposals and take concrete actions to counter these inappropriate amendments.

1.The Constitutional Litigation System Should Not Be a Victim of Political Conflict

We recognize the importance of adjusting the constitutional litigation system based on its practical needs and flaws, through rational debate. However, the two amendments proposed by KMT Legislator Hsiao-Ling Weng were introduced amidst opposition efforts to block nominations for Grand Justices, with nearly half of the justices set to step down on October 31. At the same time, the “Legislative Expansion/Reform Act,” spearheaded by the opposition, is under review by the Constitutional Court.

During the 2019 amendment process for the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and its subsequent passage, the KMT never formally expressed dissent regarding the composition of the court or its decision-making thresholds. However, following the Constitutional Court’s review of the “Legislative Expansion/Reform Act,” KMT legislators began proposing amendments targeting the constitutional litigation system. Objectively speaking, the KMT’s legislative efforts appears to be an effort intended to intimidate or influence the court’s deliberations on this Act.

2.Defining “Existing Quorum” as the “Statutory Quorum” is a Misguided Legislative Move

One of Hsiao-Ling Weng’s proposals seeks to redefine the constitutional court’s “existing quorum” as the “statutory quorum” of 15 members. This is achieved by adding a third clause to Article 4 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, stating: “The term ‘existing quorum’ in this Act refers to the number of Grand Justices stipulated in Article 5 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution.”

Legally, the “statutory quorum” refers to the 15 Grand Justices specified in the Constitution’s Additional Articles, whereas “existing quorum” should mean the number of justices currently in office. The proposed amendment conflates these two distinct concepts, creating unnecessary confusion. Legislative efforts to adjust quorum requirements should not be achieved through such intentional misinterpretations.

This poorly drafted legislation also conflicts with existing provisions. Article 12 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act states: “Grand Justices who recuse themselves under this Act are not counted toward the existing quorum.” If the number of recused justices results in fewer than 10 justices available for deliberation, Hsiao-Ling Weng’s proposal would prevent the court from hearing cases, which is clearly an absurd outcome.

The true intent of this proposal seems to be ensuring the Constitutional Court’s inability to function after October 31, when the terms of seven justices expire, leaving only eight in office. If this amendment passes, the court will be unable to adjudicate any cases until at least two more justices are appointed, including cases filed by the public.

3.Raising the Decision Threshold Reverses Judicial Reform Progress

Another proposal by Hsiao-Ling Weng seeks to change the decision-making threshold in the Constitutional Court Procedure Act from “two-thirds attendance, with decisions made by a majority of those present” to “two-thirds attendance, with decisions made by two-thirds of the total members.” This regressive amendment reinstates outdated practices.

The rationale for the 2019 amendments stated: “The previous requirement of two-thirds agreement among attendees for constitutional reviews often made it difficult to conclude cases. This necessitates reform to align with international practices, which typically require a simple majority. To protect the rights of petitioners and improve case efficiency, the Act mandates decisions be made by a majority of current members.” Returning to the old system undermines judicial efficiency and public rights.

If adjustments to the decision thresholds are necessary, they should be based on case types and procedural importance. However, combining Hsiao-Ling Weng’s two proposals creates a scenario where at least 10 justices must be present, and unanimous agreement is required among attendees—an unreasonably high standard that jeopardizes the court’s functionality.

4.The Constitutional Court Safeguards Public Rights; the Opposition Must Not Ignore this Responsibility

The Constitutional Court not only handles politically sensitive cases but also protects fundamental rights. Landmark cases, such as those affirming the rights of the Siraya Indigenous people, same-sex marriage, or overturning wrongful convictions, highlight its role in safeguarding justice.

The Constitutional Court serves as the last line of defense to civil rights and liberties for ordinary Taiwanese people. Having the constituional court undermined or halted could harm countless innocent individuals, and reflects a totaldisregard of public litigation rights.

We urge all parties to prioritize the Constitutional Court’s functionality over political partisanship and respect the public’s right to judicial remedies.

5.The Opposition’s Manipulation of the Constitutional Court Risks a Constitutional Crisis

While debates over decision thresholds are valid, the KMT’s actions during the “Legislative Expansion/Reform Act” case and its obstruction of Grand Justice nominations suggest a lack of objectivity. Even if three nominees are approved, allowing the court to barely operate with 10 justices, the opposition’s disregard for judicial independence and public rights remains evident.

The Constitutional Court is a critical check on legislative, executive, and presidential powers. If the opposition paralyzes the court out of mere political dissatisfaction towards judicial oversight, it risks removing safeguards against presidential overreach—a scenario that serves no one’s interest.

Past abuses of power by the Legislative Yuan, such as slashing judicial stipends over constitutional interpretations, demonstrate the dangers of politicizing judicial processes. However, those actions merely slowed the court’s operations, whereas the current proposals threaten to entirely incapcitate it.

Joint Statement of Concern

We call on legislators to reject these proposals and on the public to monitor this issue closely. Let us work together to ensure the Constitutional Court remains an effective guardian of democracy and the rule of law.

Endorsing Organizations:

- Judicial Reform Foundation

- Covenants Watch

- Taiwan Labour Front

- Citizen Congress Watch

- Taiwan Criminal Defense Attorney Association

- Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty

- Environmental Rights Foundation

- Taiwan Association for Human Rights

- The League for Persons with Disabilities 

- Taiwan Forever Association 

- Taiwan Hong Kong for Democracy

- Taiwan National Security Institute

- Taiwan National Security Institute

- Taiwan New Constitution Foundation

- Environmental Jurists Association

- National Association for Firefighters’ Rights(NAFR)

- Indigenous Youth Front

- Taiwan Indigenous Youth Public Participation Association 

- Hong Kong Outlanders