A Call to the Prosecutors Evaluation Commission: Transparency is the Best Policy! Press Conference Demanding the Prosecutors Evaluation Commission to "Open Its Files"

In response to widespread criticism over the recent resolution by the Prosecutors Evaluation Commission, we solemnly demand that the Commission publicize the full records of the evaluation proceedings to maintain public trust. Meanwhile, our Foundation will also apply to copy the case files. Details are explained below:

1. The resolution and procedures of the Prosecutors Evaluation Commission have been subject to widespread criticism:

The Prosecutors Evaluation Commission only recommended a reprimand for Chief Prosecutor Ch'en Shou-huang, who was allegedly involved in lobbying. Our Foundation considers the reasoning to be in complete contradiction with the resolution outcome, and the public generally criticizes it as "severe wrongdoing met with a light punishment," making it hard to understand.
The Commission's flimsy reasoning for punishing Ch'en lightly was based on his promise to step down voluntarily, yet this was subsequently refused. Exactly how the Commission deliberated on this during the procedure is a matter of concern. Afterward, it instead enabled the Ministry of Justice to quickly transfer him. Both the severity of the sanction and the procedures followed were highly bizarre, leaving outsiders feeling as though they were looking through a fog.
Moreover, the Supreme Prosecutors Office issued a press release under its institutional name, fiercely attacking the Commission: aside from criticizing spokesperson P'eng Wen-cheng for "pre-judging," it also stated that "the chairperson and members voluntarily recused themselves, but important members of the JRF did not recuse themselves," which was "evidently unfair." It further questioned whether the Commission was "blinded to the facts" and "lost its objective and impartial stance," adding that recommending merely a "light warning and disciplinary measure" for a lobbying case was "contrary to the legal sentiment of the general public," making assertions that sounded categorical. Although the Commission has issued a single press release in response, it appears far too weak and feeble compared to the accusations made by the Supreme Prosecutors Office.

2. Members of the Prosecutors Evaluation Commission, please bravely face the situation, be accountable to history, and proactively publish the meeting minutes:

The reason the public credibility of the Commission has faced severe challenges is closely tied to the lack of openness and transparency in its review process. The Prosecutors Evaluation Commission is an important independent agency, and its members are the finest of their time. We believe that since they are willing to shoulder this heavy responsibility and wield this power, they should also possess the spirit and professional integrity to bravely face the situation and be accountable to history.
Therefore, our Foundation calls upon the Commission not to evade or deflect, but to proactively publish all records and information from the investigation of this case (including but not limited to verbatim transcripts of meeting minutes, interview records, and retrieved files) to uphold public credibility, silence skeptical voices, and set an important precedent for a transparent government.

3. Meanwhile, our Foundation will also apply to view, transcribe, or copy the files:

Article 17 of the Archives Act stipulates: "Applications to view, transcribe, or copy archives shall be made in writing stating the reasons, and no agency shall refuse unless there is a legal basis."
As the requesting organization for evaluation in this case and one of the procedural subjects, our Foundation should enjoy the rights to make statements, be present, and review case files. However, the Commission previously arbitrarily interpreted the provisions of Article 41, Paragraph 9 of the Judges Act (Note: this article limits the official powers of the Evaluation Commission, not the procedural rights of the parties involved) to exclude our Foundation's right to procedural participation. Now that the investigative procedure has concluded, our Foundation will apply to the Commission to view, transcribe, or copy the files pursuant to Article 17 of the Archives Act.

Attendees

Lin Feng-cheng, Attorney-at-Law, Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation
Kao Jung-chih, Attorney-at-Law, Office Director, Judicial Reform Foundation

Media Contact

Attorney Lin Feng-cheng 02-2523-1178