Blueprint for Judicial Reform - 1st Edition

Last edited: 2026-08-27

Judicial Reform Foundation

Preface

This year is 1999, and the new millennium is close at hand.

Judicial reform in our country is of the utmost importance and urgency. If our nation truly wishes to fulfill the purpose of its existence, rank among civilized and progressive nations, and command international respect and recognition, a prompt and effective overhaul of the judiciary is indispensable. To this day, the state no longer exists for the benefit of any single individual or political party; its raison d'être lies entirely in assisting all citizens to realize human dignity and value. For the people living within it, fundamental constitutional rights—such as equality, liberty, life, work, property, and social rights—must be effectively guaranteed and protected from infringement, ensuring freedom from both want and fear. Whether a country has attained civilization and progress is widely recognized as unrelated to its annual economic growth rate, average national income, or foreign exchange reserves; rather, it should be judged by the various human rights indicators it has achieved. In recent years, our country's economic and democratic reforms have yielded remarkable results that are acclaimed by all, yet our people continue to exhibit a high misery index coupled with low human rights indicators. Born and raised here, our people cannot obtain the due protection and fulfillment they deserve. Tracing the root cause, this is attributable to the weak and stagnant functioning of the judicial system.

The establishment of a national judicial system aims to empower judicial organs with the powers of interpretation, adjudication, and related authorities, expecting them to uphold an impartial and independent stance, practice due legal process, externally check the executive and legislative branches to protect and promote the well-being of all citizens, and internally settle disputes, unmask wrongdoings, and safeguard social order and individual rights. However, for over fifty years, restricted by historical and political factors, our judiciary has suffered from compromised judicial independence, substandard adjudication quality, and flawed judicial integrity, severely impairing the normal operation of the aforementioned mechanisms. As the dikes of corruption and privilege breach and collapse, black gold runs rampant, and the people find no peace. That our country urgently needs to drastically reform the judiciary is a view shared by people of insight across all sectors. The Judicial Yuan previously established an official judicial reform committee to actively deliberate and promote reforms, yet its outcomes clearly failed to meet public expectations. Three years ago, a group of idealistic and enthusiastic attorneys, scholars, and parliamentarians, deeply struck by the social responsibilities of intellectuals, resolutely founded this Foundation, swearing to dedicate their hearts and minds to the great cause of judicial reform in our country.

Over the past three years, the Foundation has exposed judicial problems and abuses from the perspective of the people, strongly demanded that judicial authorities improve judicial integrity and adjudication quality, proposed various legislative and amendment drafts, raised public awareness of rights, and strengthened civic legal education, among other efforts that have won widespread recognition. Nevertheless, at the inception of the Foundation, given that our judicial issues were intricate and deeply intertwined, any fundamental transformation of the judiciary still required a macro-perspective and comprehensive planning—that is, adopting a forward-looking vision to conduct vertical and horizontal reflections across the judicial system and related peripheral fields, breaking free from old molds, adhering to lofty ideals, and outlining a comprehensive reform plan from a systemic perspective to serve as a benchmark for long-term struggle, thereby grasping the direction, synchronizing steps, and accomplishing reforms step by step. In accordance with this understanding, a task force was immediately established to draft the "Blueprint for Judicial Reform." After three years of work, the draft was finally completed. The full text is divided into eight chapters: Chapter 1 Basic Concepts, Chapter 2 Judicial Organization, Chapter 3 Litigation Systems, Chapter 4 The Judge System, Chapter 5 The Prosecutor System, Chapter 6 The Attorney System, Chapter 7 Legal Professional Training and Continuing Education, and Chapter 8 Legal Education. The descriptions are presented in an itemized manner, capturing the essential points in an orderly hierarchy, with many parts rich in innovation. The presentation of this Blueprint is initial in nature; despite the painstaking efforts of its members, there may still be areas lacking thoroughness and perfection. We sincerely invite all wise minds to offer your insights at any time so that corrections and enrichments can be made in the subsequent edition.

The formulation of this Blueprint for Judicial Reform was initiated by former Chairman of the Board Chen Chuan-yüeh. The task force was successively convened by the author and Attorney Chen. The members and the chapters for which they drafted the initial drafts are as follows: the author and Attorney Huang San-jung (Basic Concepts); Attorney Cheng Chun-i (Judicial Organization, Judges' Assembly); Attorney Sun Nai-i (Judicial Organization); Attorney Liu Feng-chou (Criminal Procedure); Attorney Hsü Shih-fan (Civil Procedure); Attorney Fan Hsiao-ling (Civil Procedure, Alternative Dispute Resolution for Civil Matters); Attorney Fu Tsu-sheng (Administrative Procedure); Attorney Lin Yung-sung (Judge Personnel); Attorney Ku Li-hsiung (Judge Supervision, Evaluation, Discipline, and the Prosecutor System); Attorney Chan Wen-kai (Judge Protection, Legal Education); Attorney Lin Tien-tsai (Prosecutor System); Attorney Chang Shih-hsing (Attorney System); and Attorney Lo Ping-cheng (Legal Professional Training and Continuing Education). After the initial draft was completed, it was submitted to the task force for multiple discussions and revisions, with Attorney Ku Li-hsiung ultimately overseeing the finalization, adjusting the wording, and integrating the style. Furthermore, Ms. Wang Shih-ssu, Executive Director of the Foundation, participated throughout the process, carefully proofreading with utmost diligence, for which we express our sincere gratitude. (January 1, 1999)

Taiwan Association for Human Rights / Judicial Reform Foundation

Chairman Kao Jui-cheng, Respectfully Written on January 1, 1999

: Preface
Chapter 1: Basic Concepts
Chapter 2: Judicial Organization
Chapter 3: Litigation Systems
Chapter 4: The Judge System
Chapter 5: The Prosecutor System
Chapter 6: The Attorney System
Chapter 7: Legal Professional Training and Continuing Education
Chapter 8: Legal Education

Co-authors

Kao Jui-cheng
Huang San-jung
Cheng Chun-i
Sun Nai-i
Liu Feng-chou
Hsü Shih-fan
Fan Hsiao-ling
Fu Tsu-sheng
Lin Yung-sung
Ku Li-hsiung
Chan Wen-kai
Lin Tien-tsai
Chang Shih-hsing
Lo Ping-cheng

Blueprint for Judicial Reform - 1st Edition

This book is the first edition of the "Blueprint for Judicial Reform" published by the Judicial Reform Foundation in 1999.

Preface

This year is 1999, and the new millennium is close at hand.

Judicial Reform Foundation

Chairman Kao Jui-cheng, Respectfully Written

Chapter 1 Basic Concepts

Modern Western philosophy originated from the Renaissance in the 15th century, the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century, and the Enlightenment in the 18th century. Great thinkers through the ages have emerged one after another, each leading their era and gradually guiding and changing human ways of thinking and the substance of life. Human spiritual civilization has transformed vastly over time, moving from divine right to monarchical right, and finally to civil rights. Especially since the rise of thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, whose doctrines became widespread, it has been established that all human beings are born equal and enjoy natural rights such as life, body, liberty, and property. In order to secure guarantees for these natural rights, people assembled, formulated contracts, created states, and established governments to shoulder the responsibility of protecting people's rights; the constitution is this contract jointly concluded between the people and the government. Because the government is established based on a contract with the people, its powers are inherently limited. Moreover, to prevent it from sliding into arbitrariness, government powers should be divided among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, to be exercised separately and checked mutually. By the time of the American Revolution in 1776 and the French Revolution in 1789, the idea that human rights are the end and government is the means was further exalted, culminating in a symbol of modern human progress. Following the 20th century, as a result of the interactive interplay between human rationalism and socialism, the spectrum of human rights has tended to expand, but the human-centric ideological system remains unchanged.

Now that modern democratic constitutional states have established popular sovereignty, all state powers are conferred by the people. The judicial power is one of the state powers and is naturally no exception. Therefore, in contrast to the past where the law treated citizens as objects and served as a tool for rulers to govern citizens, in the present world, the legal subjectivity of citizens must be established—meaning that the law should take citizens as its primary subject, and the purpose of the law lies entirely in safeguarding human value and dignity. Accordingly, the operation of the state judicial power should listen to the voices of the public, accept public supervision, and take the safeguarding of fundamental human rights, the realization of social justice, and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law as its supreme mission.

Furthermore, to defend citizens' fundamental rights and human dignity, the judicial power should be independent of the executive and legislative powers, mutually checking them. To prevent the judiciary from being used for private interests, judicial power should stand transcendently above any individual, political party, ethnic group, or social class, viewing all citizens impartially. To ensure that judges can exercise their duties independently based on their conscience and in accordance with the Constitution and the law, all words and deeds that interfere with adjudication must be strictly prohibited, and procedural justice must be fully practiced to realize substantive justice in order to fulfill citizens' rights to litigation and defense.

For over fifty years, our country has been a democratic constitutional state in name, but popular sovereignty has been reduced to a formality, the legal subjectivity of citizens remains an empty promise, fundamental human rights and human dignity have been neglected, and judicial independence and trial independence have not been respected. Judicial integrity has been widely criticized, and trial quality has been repeatedly attacked. Regarding procedural justice, issues include severe delays in opening court sessions, discourteous language during interrogation, public leading questions or even intimidation, failure to allow continuous and exhaustive statements, perfunctory interrogation leading to frequent rescheduling, cases left idle without continued hearings for no reason, failure to investigate matters requested for investigation, directly using un-legally investigated evidence or legal relations as the basis for judgments, vague or contradictory grounds for judgment, the arbitrary detention of defendants, and prosecutors perfunctorily going through the motions at trial, among countless others. Such phenomena highlight one undeniable fact: judicial reform brooks no delay.

The Judicial Reform Foundation believes that constructing a judiciary that conforms to the principle of popular sovereignty and respects human dignity is the supreme guiding principle of the judicial reform movement. Based on this benchmark, we have specifically formulated the Blueprint for Judicial Reform and hereby set forth the basic concepts as follows:

Establish the legal outlook of "citizen legal subjectivity."
Judicial organs should take safeguarding fundamental human rights, realizing social justice, and promoting democracy and the rule of law as their supreme mission.
Judicial power, executive power, and legislative power should stand as three pillars, equal to one another and mutually checking one another.
Judicial power should stand transcendently above any individual, political party, ethnic group, or social class.
Ensure internal and external independence of adjudication, and strictly prohibit all words and deeds that interfere with judicial independence.
Without prejudice to the principle of judicial independence, judges should still be subject to strict public supervision.
Insist on procedural justice and respect citizens' right to procedural choice.
Judicial reform should value the perspective of the people and the rights and interests of litigants.

Chapter 2 Judicial Organization

1. Abolish the Judicial Yuan structured for judicial administration, establish a Supreme Court centered on the exercise of judicial power, and establish a separate Constitutional Court:

The purpose of reforming judicial organization should be to change the current situation where judicial administration overrides judicial adjudication, and to establish a judicial system centered on judicial power, thereby ensuring that judicial adjudication is free from administrative interference. Therefore, this Association recommends:

Abolish the Judicial Yuan.
The Supreme Court shall establish Civil, Criminal, Administrative Litigation, and Legal Professionals & Civil Servants Disciplinary Divisions, which, in addition to exclusively specializing in adjudication, shall also have the power to uniformly interpret laws and orders.
Establish a Constitutional Court dedicated exclusively to constitutional interpretation.
Transform constitutional interpretation procedures and disciplinary procedures for judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and civil servants into court trials.
The President of the Supreme Court and the President of the Constitutional Court shall be concurrently served by Supreme Court judges and Constitutional Court judges, respectively.

2. Establish Specialized Courts:

To cultivate specialized judges, enhance trial quality, and elevate judicial credibility, courts of first instance shall establish specialized courts meeting the needs of their respective specialized fields, such as juvenile courts, family courts, labor courts, and intellectual property courts. Other specialized fields without dedicated specialized courts should also establish specialized panels or divisions within ordinary courts, selecting individuals with expertise to serve as judges for such panels or divisions, and use this as the basis for assignments upon transfer. Courts of second and third instance shall likewise select judges with expertise to exclusively handle cases in various specialized fields.

Chapter 3 Litigation Systems

Section 1 Criminal Procedure

1. Criminal procedure should adopt the adversary system under the premise of not contravening public legal sentiment:

Adopting an adversary system in criminal procedure can ensure the detached neutrality of the adjudicating organ, as well as procedural equality between the prosecuting authority and the criminal suspect, thereby achieving the goal of complete functional separation between the prosecuting organ and the adjudicating organ. However, since the litigation model of an adversary system will inevitably place a heavy burden on courts in trying criminal cases, it should be accompanied by complementary systems including broad prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining. Nevertheless, when adopting such complementary systems, besides considering their advantages in reducing litigation sources and enhancing court adjudication quality, one must also pay attention to the potential phenomena of felony-to-misdemeanor and misdemeanor-to-acquittal, as well as the enormous impact on victim sentiment and public legal sentiment. Therefore, this Association believes that while criminal procedure should indeed adopt an adversary system to cure current judicial ills, when considering complementary systems, it should still do so under the premise of not contravening public legal sentiment to be appropriate.

2. Criminal procedure should adopt the principle of a single copy of the indictment to establish a fair court:

The current Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that when a prosecutor files an indictment, case files and evidence shall be submitted simultaneously. Aside from exposing the court to evidence unfavorable to the defendant prior to trial and thereby creating the risk of prejudgment and bias, this provision serves little practical benefit and naturally runs counter to the global trend of human rights protection. Therefore, to ensure the neutrality of the court and enable defendants to receive a fair trial, criminal procedure should adopt the principle of a single copy of the indictment.

3. Once the fact-finding function of the first instance is strengthened, the second instance should adopt a posteriori review, and the third instance should adopt a strict legal review, focusing on the unification of the interpretation and application of laws and precedents:

To strengthen the fact-finding function of the first instance, the supporting concrete measures are as follows:

The first instance shall adopt a collegial panel system, with three or more judges participating throughout the evidence-investigation and trial procedures, and adopt continuous and concentrated trials.
Restrict candidate judges from participating in trials.
Prosecutors shall participate in the trial proceedings throughout, appear in court to execute public prosecution, and fulfill the burden of proof.
Except for special circumstances enumerated by law, statements made by witnesses not in the presence of a judge shall not be used as evidence.
In principle, the testimony or opinions of a witness or expert witness shall not be adopted as the basis for a judgment without cross-examination by the parties and defense counsel.
Criminal suspects, defendants, defense counsel, prosecutors, and private prosecutors shall have the right to request evidence preservation upon court permission during investigation and prior to the first trial date, and the right to petition the court to investigate evidence during trial.
When prosecutors implement searches, seizures, or inspections, defense counsel may be present and express opinions.
Enhance the scientific investigative capabilities of prosecutors, police, and investigation agencies, such as the establishment of comprehensive professional forensic personnel and equipment, and the setup of non-contact, selective lineup equipment for eyewitnesses or victims to identify criminal suspects and defendants.

Civil Procedure

1. Consolidate the function of first-instance adjudication and establish a pyramid-shaped litigation system:

Except for summary proceedings, the first instance shall adopt a collegial panel system, with three or more judges participating throughout the evidence-investigation and trial proceedings.
The second instance shall adopt a strictly restricted system of continuation: disputed points that could no longer be asserted after being organized and agreed upon in the first instance, those that were ordered to be submitted within a set period but were not, or those that were not raised in the first instance proceedings due to reasons attributable to the parties, shall no longer be permitted to be raised in the second instance.
The third instance shall adopt a permitted appeal system, limited to cases where the legal opinions involved in the litigation matter have principal significance, and upon permission by the court of prior ruling or the Supreme Court, an appeal may be lodged to the third instance.

2. Reduce and exempt court fees and relax the requirements for litigation aid to guarantee citizens' right to equal access to courts:

According to event types, adopt fixed-amount, tiered regressive, and maximum-limit systems respectively. For example: small-claims matters shall uniformly levy court fees at a fixed amount per case (e.g., NT$1,000); court fees for the first instance of ordinary matters shall be levied at one percent of the amount or value of the subject matter of the litigation, and when such amount or value exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., NT$1,000,000), the levy proportion for the excess part shall be tiered and progressively reduced, provided that the maximum court fee shall not exceed a certain amount (e.g., NT$3,000,000).
Litigation matters beneficial to the public (e.g., public nuisance prevention cases) shall be exempt from court fees.
The requirements and scope of litigation aid shall be relaxed. For example: anyone lacking financial resources for expenses necessary to prepare and conduct litigation, or whose livelihood would be hindered by the expenditure of such expenses, shall be deemed to meet the requirements for litigation aid. Moreover, before a ruling dismissing an application for litigation aid becomes final, the court shall not dismiss the plaintiff's action on the grounds of failure to pay court fees.

3. Implement the principle of priority in resolving the merits of a case to guarantee citizens' right to a timely trial:

If an indictment fails to comply with formalities, lacks procedural requirements, lacks conditions of the right of action, or contains other procedural flaws that are rectifiable, the court shall grant the parties opportunities for correction or amendment, and relax the requirements for amending or supplementing claims within the first-instance litigation proceedings.
Expand the court's duty of legal clarification to prevent parties from failing to obtain a judgment on the merits in a timely manner due to unfamiliarity with legal knowledge or momentary oversight.

4. Expand means of gathering evidence and guarantee parties' right to a hearing:

Convert evidence preservation into an independent evidence-investigation procedure and expand its scope of application. For example, prior to filing an action, when there is legal interest and necessity in ascertaining the current state of affairs, evidence preservation may indeed be petitioned; when there is legal interest or it is beneficial to preventing the expansion of disputes in ascertaining the state of a specific person or thing, value, human injury, property damage or the cause of defects, or expenses necessary to eliminate such damage or defects, an application may also be made for the court to designate an expert witness for appraisal.
Expand the scope of the duty to produce documents; except where the document holder has legitimate grounds such as the right to refuse testimony, production of documents shall not be refused.
In paternity confirmation cases, if any person undergoes physical examination (including blood drawing for blood-type identification) without harming their health, and such examination is sufficient to prove the facts, but refuses without justifiable grounds, the court may directly compel them to submit to the examination.
Strengthen parties' right to question each other, discretionarily adopting an inter-party inquiry system or inter-party questioning document system.
Adopt an attorney inquiry system, whereby attorneys retained by parties may make inquiries to organs or organizations through the bar association.
For the interrogation of witnesses, adopt a cross-examination system, with judges retaining the right to conduct supplementary questioning.

5. Adopt the cooperative principle, requiring the court and both parties to cooperate in discovering the truth and advancing litigation:

The court shall adopt a mode of making judicial conviction and legal opinions public when exercising the duty of clarification, avoiding surprise judgments against the parties.
Adopt concentrated trials; after disputed points are organized, evidence investigation shall be concentrated immediately (e.g., interrogating all witnesses on the same date).
Acknowledge the functions of parties themselves in clarifying cases, proving facts, and expressing conviction, adopt a party interrogation system, and grant parties opportunities to participate in debates.
Adopt the principle of timely presentation; parties' attacks or defense methods shall be presented at appropriate times before the conclusion of oral arguments, according to the degree of progress of the litigation.
Parties shall proactively and timely disclose evidence information (especially catalogs of documents and inspection objects, and names and residences of witnesses) to the opposing party.
In the preliminary stage of litigation, judges shall, as far as possible, draft a schedule in advance with both parties (attorneys representing the litigation) regarding subsequent procedural progressions (e.g., disputed-point organization dates, evidence investigation dates, and debate dates).

6. Adopt the mandatory attorney system

Except for summary matters, small-claims matters, mediation proceedings, and personal status litigation proceedings, civil matters shall retain an attorney as litigation agent.
For civil matters adopting the mandatory attorney system, attorney remuneration shall also be part of litigation costs, which shall be borne by the losing party, and attorney remuneration shall be standardized.
Under-resourced parties in matters adopting the mandatory attorney system may request legal aid from the court, and the court shall, upon their application, notify the bar association to designate a pro bono attorney as their litigation agent.

Section 3 Alternative Dispute Resolution for Civil Matters

1. Expand the function of court mediation:

Establish independent mediation bodies within courts, with retired judges, prosecutors, or other socially impartial persons possessing professional competence serving as mediators, so as to expand the function of court mediation.

2. Widely establish private mediation bodies:

Professional associations, labor unions, social groups, or organizations permitted by the court may establish mediation units to engage in related dispute mediation business. Mediations concluded by private bodies that are ratified by the court shall have the same effect as a final and binding judgment and may serve as the basis for compulsory enforcement.

3. Strengthen the legal effect of administrative agency mediation:

The legal effect of mediations concluded by mediation bodies of administrative agencies established in accordance with the law shall be strengthened, meaning that once ratified by the court, they shall have the same effect as a final and binding judgment and may serve as the basis for compulsory enforcement.

4. Diversification of arbitration institutions:

Professional associations, labor unions, social groups, or organizations permitted by the court may all establish arbitration units to engage in related dispute arbitration business.

5. Concurrent operation of "institutional arbitration" and "non-institutional arbitration" systems:

Both disputing parties may agree on "institutional arbitration," conducting arbitration through an arbitration institution according to its arbitration procedural rules, or they may agree on "non-institutional arbitration," selecting one or more arbitrators by themselves to conduct arbitration.

Section 4 Administrative Procedure

1. Administrative courts should be incorporated into ordinary courts with specialized administrative litigation panels established; administrative litigation should adopt a three-tier, three-instance system, while the administrative appeal procedure should be revised to be optional for citizens:

The law exists for the people, not merely for legal experts. Although the distinction between public law and private law has possessed a complex body of theory since ancient times, it still cannot be specifically, clearly, and completely demarcated. In practice, ordinary courts and administrative courts passing the buck to each other are common, and even the Grand Justices cannot make a clear distinction between public law and private law events. Current laws also frequently provide examples of public law events being tried by ordinary courts, such as state compensation events, election and recall events, and traffic cases. Therefore, requiring ordinary citizens to distinguish the nature of a case and choose different relief channels runs counter to the intent of Article 16 of the Constitution safeguarding citizens' right to litigation, which is especially evident in our country where the mandatory attorney system is not yet adopted. Standing from the perspective of the people, while distinguishing public and private law cases to have different competent courts has its historical and professional considerations, it invisibly diminishes the relief channels and opportunities for citizens when disputes occur with administrative agencies. Accordingly, this Association advocates that administrative courts should be incorporated into ordinary courts and adopt a three-tier, three-instance system, requiring only the establishment of specialized panels for trying public law events within ordinary courts, so that citizens can directly petition courts for relief regardless of whether they have administrative, civil, or criminal disputes. As for the administrative appeal procedure, it may be retained while granting citizens the right to procedural choice—allowing citizens to choose whether to undergo administrative appeal first before filing litigation or to file litigation directly.

2. Administrative appeal organs should ensure reasonable independence and be permitted to petition the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court for interpretation when they deem laws or regulations unconstitutional or necessary for a uniform interpretation:

At present, the administrative appeal review committees established by governments at all levels are internal units of administrative agencies lacking full independence, often leading to the predicament of acting as a rubber stamp for administrative agencies, thus inviting criticism for poor functioning. Therefore, this Association believes that to change this phenomenon and align with the reforms explained in the preceding item, making citizens willing to adopt the administrative appeal procedure, administrative appeal organs must be endowed with reasonable independence, and when encountering situations where they deem the applied laws or orders to be unconstitutional or where there is a necessity to apply for a uniform interpretation, they may suspend the review proceedings and petition the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court for interpretation.

3. Administrative procedure may be legislated separately, adopting the adversary system, oral argument principle, and open trial principle:

If administrative courts are incorporated into ordinary courts, a separate Administrative Litigation Act may still be enacted following Japanese legal precedent for compliance. Administrative litigation should adopt the adversary system, oral argument principle, and open trial principle to ensure citizens' right to litigation. In addition, types of litigation should be expanded so that all public law disputes have avenues for relief, and strict rules of evidence should be codified and legalized to eliminate provisions on handling procedures that violate fundamental human rights in the current system.

Chapter 4 The Judge System

Section 1 Judge Personnel

1. Abolish the judge examination system, and select judges entirely from attorneys, prosecutors, and scholars:

Judges of district courts and high courts:
Those who pass the attorney and prosecutor examinations and serve as attorneys or prosecutors after two years of training, have served as prosecutors or practicing attorneys for ten years or more, or possess professor or associate professor qualifications, and are selected and qualified by the Judge Selection Committee, may serve as district court or high court judges. In addition, individuals with specialized technology or knowledge who possess certain qualifications may also be selected as district court or high court judges to exclusively handle specific specialized cases.
Supreme Court judges:
The Supreme Court shall have fifteen judges, who shall be nominated by the President and appointed with the consent of the Legislative Yuan from those who have served as district court or high court judges for five years or more, as attorneys or prosecutors for fifteen years or more, or as professors for five years or more.
Constitutional Court judges:
The Constitutional Court shall have nine judges, without qualification restrictions, nominated by the President and appointed with the consent of the Legislative Yuan.
Introduce a lay participation system of non-professional judges:
Introduce lay participants for case types possessing special characteristics, such as juvenile, family, labor, and intellectual property cases.

2. Tenure of judges:

Judges of high courts and district courts shall hold life tenure, but there shall be a mandatory retirement system.
Judges of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court shall adopt a term system, with a term of eight years without consecutive re-appointment, and half of them shall be re-appointed every four years in coordination with the presidential term to meet the requirement of representing the latest public opinion.

3. Establish judge assistants and assistant judges:

District courts and high courts shall establish assistants, adopting a dual-track source system: in addition to being filled by those undergoing their second year of training preparing to serve as attorneys or prosecutors, judge assistants shall simultaneously be selected through national examinations and protected by civil servant status, so as to maintain the stability of the sources of judge assistants.
The duties of judge assistants shall be to assist judges in organizing disputed points, drafting legal opinions, and gathering information.
The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court shall establish a number of assistant judges, selected from those possessing qualifications for appointment as district court or high court judges, to assist Constitutional Court and Supreme Court judges in handling affairs.

4. Establish non-contentious legal officers:

To alleviate the burden on judges and concentrate judicial manpower on adjudication affairs in order to enhance trial quality, it is recommended to examine and appoint non-contentious legal officers dedicated to handling civil non-contentious matters.

Section 2 Judges' Assembly

1. Court administration should have as its sole purpose the supporting of judges' adjudication; therefore, the judges' assembly composed of all judges participating in trials should be the supreme authority of court administration, enabling court administration to be collectively managed by all judges through the judges' assembly, or delegated to committees, the president, or other personnel for management.

2. The judges' assembly may establish a case-assignment committee, a personnel committee, a general affairs committee, and other committees. The organization and powers of each committee shall be determined by the judges' assembly.

3. The judges' assembly shall be convened regularly or at any time by the president or a certain number of judges. The chairperson of the meeting shall be elected mutually by the attending judges.

4. Court presidents and other administrative supervisors shall be appointed and removed by the judges' assembly and shall adopt a term system.

5. Annual case assignments shall be decided by the judges' assembly, and trial divisions shall be determined according to case assignments, with senior judges serving as presiding judges, abolishing the administrative-function-based division chief system.

Section 3 Judge Supervision, Evaluation, and Discipline

1. Official supervision:

Official supervision over judges shall not touch upon the core realm of independent adjudication; the purpose of official supervision shall be limited to preventing judges from exercising their duties in violation of the law and urging judges to execute their duties promptly in accordance with the law.
The judges' assembly shall be the subject of official supervision, and it shall be explicitly provided that judges may seek remedies against improper official supervisory acts that they deem to infringe upon judicial independence.

2. Judge evaluation:

The Supreme Court shall establish a Judge Evaluation Committee responsible for judge evaluation work. Its members shall be nominated by the President of the Supreme Court and appointed with the consent of Parliament. Members shall include judges, prosecutors, attorneys, scholars, and socially impartial persons, and quotas shall be set for the number of members in each category.
Judge evaluation work is divided into general evaluation and case-specific evaluation. General evaluation shall be conducted regularly in batches for all judges. Case-specific evaluation shall be conducted only regarding finalized cases to avoid interfering with adjudication.
For the needs of evaluation, the Judge Evaluation Committee may retrieve case files and audio-video recordings of court proceedings, and may dispatch personnel to sit in the courtroom as observers at any time.
Evaluation results shall be made public. If grounds are found for the evaluated judge to be subject to criminal prosecution, the case shall be transferred for investigation; if grounds are found for disciplinary action, a request for discipline shall be filed.

3. Judge discipline:

The disciplinary procedure for judges shall be trial-based and litigation-based—meaning that a Disciplinary Court shall be established to conduct trials in accordance with the principle of direct conviction, the principle of oral argument, and the principle of both parties appearing in court, adopting a two-tier, two-instance system.
Adopt the principle of no action without a complaint, with initiating organs or organizations being the Judge Evaluation Committee, the court to which the person petitioned against belongs, prosecutors' offices at all levels, local bar associations, and the national federation.
Disciplinary grounds shall include acting in violation of the law in the performance of duties, dereliction of duties, and breaching judicial ethics norms, but shall not include divergent legal interpretations in adjudications.
After a judgment becomes final, the full text of judgments of all instances shall be published in the Supreme Court Gazette.

Section 4 Judge Protection

1. Protection of judges' status and duties:

The removal of a judge shall have its grounds explicitly stipulated by law; except for statutory grounds, judges shall not be removed.
Except where a ruling of being wanted, detained, or placed under an order of interdiction has become final, judges shall not be suspended from duties.
The removal and suspension of judges shall be conducted by the Disciplinary Court through litigation procedures.
The transfer of a judge to non-adjudication duties, unless consented to by the person concerned, shall be limited to cases where they have been prosecuted for intentionally committing a criminal offense, or have been subjected to suspension or removal dispositions that are not yet final. Involuntary transfers must be made through a resolution of the judges' assembly.
Regional reassignments of judges, unless consented to by the person concerned, shall be made by the Supreme Court Personnel Review Committee based on statutory grounds. The members of the Personnel Review Committee shall be predominantly judges, and their method of designation shall conform to democratic principles. Judges dissatisfied with reassignment orders may file a grievance with the Personnel Review Committee within a specified period.
Judges shall not be reassigned across court instances unless consented to by the person concerned.

2. Salaries of judges:

Judges shall not be classified into official ranks and grades; their salaries shall be determined by seniority.
When judges are transferred to non-adjudication duties, the recalculation of their seniority shall be guaranteed.

3. Leave and advanced studies of judges:

Judges shall have a certain amount of leave, and the standards thereof shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions for civil servants.
Judges shall be encouraged to pursue advanced studies, and expenses and living allowances for such advanced studies shall be subsidized through budgets compiled by the state.

4. Retirement and bereavement compensation of judges:

Life-tenure judges reaching a certain age or in circumstances rendering them unable to discharge their duties shall be made to retire. Livelihood after retirement shall be guaranteed.
Standards for judges' bereavement compensation shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions for civil servants.

Chapter 5 The Prosecutor System

1. Positioning of prosecutors and prosecuting organs:

Prosecutors are not judges; prosecuting organs belong to judicial administrative agencies and are basically part of the executive branch. Therefore, constitutional provisions regarding the protection of judges' status and duties should not apply to prosecutors. However, in the process of representing the state to realize concrete penal power, and when participating in civil litigation proceedings in the role of a public interest representative, prosecutors bear the duty to discover the truth and protect human rights. Under this duty, prosecutors share the responsibility of realizing judicial justice with judges and enjoy a status free from arbitrary interference. Thus, while the general duty of obedience requiring ordinary civil servants to follow superiors' orders applies to prosecutors, it must have its boundaries—meaning that when the Prosecutor-General and chief prosecutors exercise their power of command and supervision, power of functional intervention, and power of functional transfer over subordinate prosecutors in accordance with the principle of unitary prosecution, it must be for the purpose of effectively prosecuting crimes and safeguarding procedural justice. Exercising the aforesaid powers outside of this purpose constitutes arbitrary interference with prosecutors' duties and violates the purpose of establishing the office of prosecutors. Prosecutors possess the right to express their opinions against such arbitrary interference and to state objections to specific organs. Therefore, when the Prosecutor-General and chief prosecutors exercise the aforesaid powers, they must do so in writing with reasons attached, so as to allow subsequent objective review of their legitimacy.
While the principle of a unitary system applies within the prosecution system for the effective prosecution of crimes, the prosecution system must be independent externally to prevent party interests from improperly affecting the exercise of prosecutorial functions. To seek external independence of prosecution, the Prosecutor-General must be nominated by the President, appointed with the consent of the Legislative Yuan, and serve a fixed term.
As a result of configuring current prosecutors' offices alongside courts at all levels, experienced senior prosecutors instead occupy secondary positions, while inexperienced junior prosecutors carry out investigations on the front line. This is not effective manpower planning. Furthermore, configuring prosecutors' offices at all levels according to court instances also prevents public prosecution cases from being pursued to the end exclusively by specific prosecutors, substantially impairing the exercise of prosecutors' public prosecution duties. Therefore, prosecutors' offices should be established purely based on geography, a Prosecutor-General's Office shall be established under the Executive Yuan, the current Supreme Prosecutors' Office and various high prosecutors' offices and their branch offices shall be abolished, and the prosecution system shall be set at two tiers.
After the Prosecutor-General is approved by Parliament and has a fixed term, internal prosecution personnel matters should be regularized and democratized. To this end, a Personnel Review Committee of the Prosecutor-General's Office shall be established, with more than half of its members elected through democratic means, and prosecutors' offices at all levels shall regularly convene prosecutors' assemblies, whose composition, powers, and status shall be explicitly stipulated by legislation.
The evaluation methods and disciplinary procedures for prosecutors shall follow the provisions of the judge system.

2. Prosecutor-police relationship:

Prosecutors are the subjects of the investigation procedure, but judicial police personnel have preliminary investigation authority—meaning that before a prosecutor intervenes in an investigation, judicial police personnel are the subjects of the investigation procedure.
Prosecutors do not need to intervene in cases preliminarily investigated and transferred by judicial police; however, once they intervene, it enters the investigation procedure, and prosecutors assume responsibility for conducting investigations in the capacity of investigation subjects, at which point prosecutors may still direct and command judicial police personnel to conduct or assist in investigations.
Regarding cases transferred by judicial police personnel for prosecution after preliminary investigation, or cases investigated under their direction and command, if the prosecutor deems that the investigative results of the judicial police personnel are incomplete or have made no progress, they may set a time limit ordering them to reinvestigate, transfer the case to other judicial police personnel for investigation, or return it for self-investigation.
If judicial police personnel disobey a prosecutor's direction or command without justifiable grounds, and the prosecutor deems it to constitute grounds for disciplinary action, they may, through a resolution of the prosecutors' assembly to which they belong, directly discipline the judicial police personnel or submit them for discipline in accordance with powers and responsibilities.
Compulsory disposition procedures shall adopt the warrant principle, meaning that all compulsory dispositions must be permitted by the court via a warrant. Judicial police personnel and prosecutors have no compulsory disposition powers whatsoever, except in urgent circumstances where there is insufficient time to report to the court, allowing them to temporarily take emergency dispositions.
Prosecutors' offices at all levels shall establish administrative-investigative officers, who shall be subject to prosecutors' direction to assist prosecutors in handling investigative affairs. In addition, prosecutors' offices in metropolitan areas may be equipped with dedicated investigative personnel to assist prosecutors in investigating specific types of cases.
Prosecutors' offices and judicial police agencies shall establish a spokesperson system. Handling prosecutors and judicial police personnel shall not casually contact the media. The content of statements made by spokespersons shall not violate the principle of non-disclosure of investigations.
Aside from police forensic units, the government shall establish a separate independent forensic unit responsible for forensic business concerning crime investigation and prevention, and this unit shall not be directed or supervised by prosecuting or judicial police agencies.

Chapter 6 The Attorney System

1. Organizational reforms of the Taiwan Bar Association:

Members of the national federation shall simultaneously include local bar associations (institutional members) and all individual members who have joined local bar associations (individual members).
Attorneys shall join a bar association, and each attorney may join only one local bar association, registering with the national federation through the local bar association. Upon approval of registration, they shall simultaneously become members of the local bar association and the national federation, and may practice attorney services across the country.
When practicing attorney services in the jurisdiction of a local bar association other than their own, they shall pay a service fee to that local bar association on a case-by-case basis.
An attorney may establish only one law office. If two or more attorneys form a partnership law office, branch offices may be established, provided that each branch office must have one resident attorney who joins the respective local bar association.
Every attorney shall pay dues to their local bar association and the national federation concurrently. The national federation shall subsidize financially distressed local bar associations.
The President of the national federation shall be directly elected by all individual members, and the winner shall be the one who receives the highest number of votes while simultaneously obtaining the highest number of votes in at least one-third of the local bar associations.
Presidents of local bar associations shall be ex officio directors of the national federation, and an equal number of directors and seven supervisors shall be elected directly by all individual members through voting. Four executive directors and one vice president shall be respectively put forward from among the ex officio directors and directly elected directors, and one executive supervisor shall be put forward from among the supervisors.

2. Attorney professional qualification review and continuing education:

Attorneys shall acquire specialized field qualifications through continuing education courses organized or approved by the national federation, and undergo re-evaluation every several years.
Attorneys who have not acquired specialized field qualifications shall not style themselves as attorneys in that specialized field.
The national federation shall establish specialized field committees subordinate to it according to professional needs, responsible for planning and executing various professional courses and reviewing specialized field attorney qualifications.
Attorneys shall allocate a certain number of hours each year to participate in continuing education courses organized or approved by the national federation. Failure to meet the basic hourly requirement for continuing education without justifiable grounds will constitute grounds for disciplinary action.

3. Attorneys have the obligation to engage in social public interest services:

Attorneys shall allocate a certain number of hours each year to engage in common-people legal services, pro bono defense, pro bono litigation, promotion of legal education, bar association affairs, or social public interest services recognized by the association.
The national federation shall publish the basic hours and annual hours that every attorney must engage in social public interest services each year. If an attorney fails to engage in social public interest services up to the basic hour requirement without justifiable grounds, it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. Beyond the basic hours, if the contributed hours fail to reach the annual hours required by the national federation, they shall be converted into money as a public interest contribution paid into the legal aid fund established by the affiliated local bar association.

4. Attorney discipline:

Attorney discipline shall be referred by local bar associations and prosecutors' offices at all levels to a disciplinary court composed within the national federation for initial review.
Re-examination of attorney discipline shall be tried by the Legal Professionals & Civil Servants Disciplinary Division of the Supreme Court.
Attorney disciplinary procedures shall be litigation-based and conducted in accordance with the principle of direct trial, the principle of oral argument, and the principle of both parties appearing in court.

5. Attorney evaluation:

Regularly hold attorney evaluations, and attorney evaluation regulations shall be formulated by the national federation.
The national federation shall establish an Attorney Evaluation Committee responsible for attorney evaluation work. Members shall include judges, prosecutors, attorneys, scholars, and socially impartial persons, and quotas shall be set for the number of members in each category.

Chapter 7 Legal Professional Training and Continuing Education

1. University legal education

Widely establish post-baccalaureate law departments and graduate institutes to strengthen legal professionals' capabilities in various specialized fields.
Mandatory study of legal ethics courses.
In addition to basic legal subjects, students should be enabled to comprehensively study individual specialized legal fields through program-based study, cultivating legal talent in specialized fields.

2. Legal professional training education:

Legal professional training education is divided into selection and education aspects. Abolish the current special judicial officer examination and high-level attorney examination, and enact a separate "Legal Professional Training and Examination Act," establishing a "Legal Professional Training and Examination Committee" within the Supreme Court responsible for planning and executing the selection and continuing education of legal professionals. Members shall include judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and scholars.

Selection aspect:
1. Adopt a two-test system
  1. The first test uses multiple-choice questions to ascertain candidates' cognitive level of basic study programs.
  2. The second test uses essay questions to ascertain their comprehension and reasoning abilities and other capacities necessary for performing duties.
  2. Those who pass the examination shall acquire attorney qualifications and prosecutor appointment qualifications only after completing pre-service training education, and shall acquire judge appointment qualifications after practicing attorney or prosecutor duties for a certain number of years.
  3. Prosecutors shall be screened by the Prosecutor-General's Office from those who have acquired the aforesaid prosecutor appointment qualifications.
Education and training aspect:
1. After passing the legal professional examination, individuals shall undergo two years of pre-service training education.
2. A Legal Professional Training Institute shall be established under the Legal Professional Training and Examination Committee, responsible for planning and executing the aforementioned two-year pre-service training education.
3. Training is divided into basic courses, practical training, and serving as judge assistants. Basic courses shall last for two months and are divided into elective and required courses; practical training shall require trainees to engage in practical learning at prosecutors' offices, law offices, or related administrative agencies for a period of ten months. The second year of training shall be spent serving as judge assistants.

3. Continuing education for legal professionals:

Judges, prosecutors, and attorneys shall study a certain number of hours of legal courses each year during the period of executing their duties.
Continuing education courses shall be jointly planned and executed by the Legal Professional Training Institute and the Taiwan Bar Association.
Failure to study continuing education courses for a certain number of hours as prescribed without justifiable grounds shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action.

Chapter 8 Legal Education

1. The purpose of legal education is to establish citizens' proper understanding of the rule of law, embody the basic spirit of legal norms in daily life, and strengthen government departments' awareness and respect for human rights in order to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights.

2. Legal education in schools:

Conceptually, attention should be paid to establishing the basic spirits of the rule of law such as "equality," "liberty," "mutual respect," "rights," and "obligations." Students should learn through practice via methods such as mock courts, student autonomous arbitration organs, and role-playing.
Re-examine current civics textbooks, replacing political ideology and moral dogma courses with human rights and rule of law education.
Train teachers for legal courses and hire legal professionals to teach legal courses for a certain number of hours.
Establish legal consultation centers in schools at all levels, with attorneys serving as center staff to assist teachers in implementing courses and providing consultations to school teachers and students.
Establish student rights grievance committees composed of teachers, parents, students, and professionals to handle grievances regarding the infringement of student rights, enabling students to value their own rights and educating them to respect due process.

3. Legal education in society

Trial proceedings of the Constitutional Court shall be broadcast publicly. Regarding court trial proceedings, the court may decide to broadcast them publicly under the premise of respecting the intentions of the parties.
The government shall provide a certain amount of funding to mandate electronic media to provide appropriate time slots for producing and broadcasting high-quality legal programs to disseminate human rights and rule of law concepts.
Establish specific legal information organs to collect and organize nationwide law-related information—such as laws, orders, judgments, interpretations, and administrative rulings—and put them online to accept inquiries. Local governments at all levels shall establish legal information centers to provide citizens with legal inquiry services.
Establish a non-official media supervision mechanism to monitor and review phenomena in the media that violate human rights and contravene the rule of law at any time.
Community learning institutions shall provide legal courses for citizens to study.

4. Legal education for civil servants:

Civil servants shall study a certain number of hours of rule of law education courses each year. Lecturers shall be selected by a specially established committee. The roster of lecturers, course contents, teaching records, and teaching materials shall be made public.
High-ranking civil servants shall take the completion of a certain number of hours of constitutional and administrative law courses as a condition for appointment.
Strengthen courses on scientific skills required for investigation and forensics, as well as human rights and rule of law concepts, in police education.

This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.

Back to News

Blueprint for Judicial Reform - 1st Edition

Preface

Table of Contents

Co-authors

Blueprint for Judicial Reform - 1st Edition

Preface

Chapter 1 Basic Concepts

Chapter 2 Judicial Organization

1. Abolish the Judicial Yuan structured for judicial administration, establish a Supreme Court centered on the exercise of judicial power, and establish a separate Constitutional Court:

2. Establish Specialized Courts:

Chapter 3 Litigation Systems

Section 1 Criminal Procedure

1. Criminal procedure should adopt the adversary system under the premise of not contravening public legal sentiment:

2. Criminal procedure should adopt the principle of a single copy of the indictment to establish a fair court:

3. Once the fact-finding function of the first instance is strengthened, the second instance should adopt a posteriori review, and the third instance should adopt a strict legal review, focusing on the unification of the interpretation and application of laws and precedents:

Civil Procedure

1. Consolidate the function of first-instance adjudication and establish a pyramid-shaped litigation system:

2. Reduce and exempt court fees and relax the requirements for litigation aid to guarantee citizens' right to equal access to courts:

3. Implement the principle of priority in resolving the merits of a case to guarantee citizens' right to a timely trial:

4. Expand means of gathering evidence and guarantee parties' right to a hearing:

5. Adopt the cooperative principle, requiring the court and both parties to cooperate in discovering the truth and advancing litigation:

6. Adopt the mandatory attorney system

Section 3 Alternative Dispute Resolution for Civil Matters

1. Expand the function of court mediation:

2. Widely establish private mediation bodies:

3. Strengthen the legal effect of administrative agency mediation:

4. Diversification of arbitration institutions:

5. Concurrent operation of "institutional arbitration" and "non-institutional arbitration" systems:

Section 4 Administrative Procedure

1. Administrative courts should be incorporated into ordinary courts with specialized administrative litigation panels established; administrative litigation should adopt a three-tier, three-instance system, while the administrative appeal procedure should be revised to be optional for citizens:

2. Administrative appeal organs should ensure reasonable independence and be permitted to petition the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court for interpretation when they deem laws or regulations unconstitutional or necessary for a uniform interpretation:

3. Administrative procedure may be legislated separately, adopting the adversary system, oral argument principle, and open trial principle:

Chapter 4 The Judge System

Section 1 Judge Personnel

1. Abolish the judge examination system, and select judges entirely from attorneys, prosecutors, and scholars:

2. Tenure of judges:

3. Establish judge assistants and assistant judges:

4. Establish non-contentious legal officers:

Section 2 Judges' Assembly

2. The judges' assembly may establish a case-assignment committee, a personnel committee, a general affairs committee, and other committees. The organization and powers of each committee shall be determined by the judges' assembly.

3. The judges' assembly shall be convened regularly or at any time by the president or a certain number of judges. The chairperson of the meeting shall be elected mutually by the attending judges.

4. Court presidents and other administrative supervisors shall be appointed and removed by the judges' assembly and shall adopt a term system.

5. Annual case assignments shall be decided by the judges' assembly, and trial divisions shall be determined according to case assignments, with senior judges serving as presiding judges, abolishing the administrative-function-based division chief system.

Section 3 Judge Supervision, Evaluation, and Discipline

1. Official supervision:

2. Judge evaluation:

3. Judge discipline:

Section 4 Judge Protection

1. Protection of judges' status and duties:

2. Salaries of judges:

3. Leave and advanced studies of judges:

4. Retirement and bereavement compensation of judges:

Chapter 5 The Prosecutor System

1. Positioning of prosecutors and prosecuting organs:

2. Prosecutor-police relationship:

Chapter 6 The Attorney System

1. Organizational reforms of the Taiwan Bar Association:

2. Attorney professional qualification review and continuing education:

3. Attorneys have the obligation to engage in social public interest services:

4. Attorney discipline:

5. Attorney evaluation:

Chapter 7 Legal Professional Training and Continuing Education

1. University legal education

2. Legal professional training education:

3. Continuing education for legal professionals:

Chapter 8 Legal Education

1. The purpose of legal education is to establish citizens' proper understanding of the rule of law, embody the basic spirit of legal norms in daily life, and strengthen government departments' awareness and respect for human rights in order to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights.

2. Legal education in schools:

3. Legal education in society

4. Legal education for civil servants:

Because of you, we have the power to reform and progress !