Huaguang Community Private Law Dispute, Police Abuse of the Police-Chop Power Act ~ Have We Returned to a "Police State"?

The Taipei Huaguang Community was demolished once again yesterday (Apr. 24). Thirteen hours prior to the scheduled demolition time, the Dadan Precinct police sealed off Chinhuajie, leading to clashes with residents and supporting citizens keeping watch through the night. A total of 14 college students and citizens were arrested by the police and all were referred for investigation on suspicion of obstructing official duties. A prosecutor from the Taipei District Prosecutors Office went directly to the Taipei City Police Department Dadan Precinct to convene an interim investigative hearing, following which all were released.

The above is the kind of reporting easily found in the media; however, it is not entirely the truth of the matter.

The truth of the matter is: (1) The Ministry of Justice knowingly breaks the law and takes the lead in violating it, mobilizing public authority on a massive scale to support a "private dispute"; (2) The police blindly obey and abuse the Police-Chop Power Act; (3) In addition, the aforementioned government agencies completely turn a deaf ear to General Comments No. 4 and No. 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, severely violating the Covenant's substantive and procedural guarantees of the people's "right to adequate housing." As such, what we are facing is definitely not a government that "administers in accordance with the law," nor is it a "rule-of-law state," but rather a cold-blooded government wearing the cloak of the law and manipulating legal incantations—a state that only knows how to "govern" the people through the law!

1. The Ministry of Justice knowingly breaks the law and takes the lead in violating it

   The Ministry of Justice has repeatedly emphasized "administration in accordance with the law," relying precisely on the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Compulsory Enforcement Act, framing the situation with the residents of the Huaguang Community as ostensibly a "private dispute." However, we must sorrowfully raise a solemn accusation: this is precisely a typical act of "public law escaping into private law"! It must be noted that the Ministry of Justice is a state organ, and its administration must have a basis and be bound by all public law as well as public law principles and doctrines. Furthermore, as the competent authority for the Enforcement Act of the Two Covenants, it shoulders the unshakable duty to actively respect, protect, and fully realize human rights norms. The causes behind the "illegal structures" in the Huaguang Community have their historical factors and Taiwan's special background context, particularly involving overall forced evictions. Rather than a simple dispute between private parties, the government needs to pay even more attention to the relevant public law care and protection owed to the people, the binding effect on administrative agencies, and the associated human rights guarantees. On the surface, it claims to "administer in accordance with the law," yet when questioned, it completely "escapes" into private law to evade responsibility; but when it wishes to exercise public authority, it grandly deploys the police and arrays the might of state sovereignty, with no act of lawlessness and disorder surpassing this!

2. The police blindly obey and abuse the Police-Chop Power Act

   On the night before last (Apr. 23), the police blockaded the streets and established a so-called "restricted zone" in the surrounding area, relying on Articles 6 and 27 of the Police-Chop Power Act as their legal basis. However, Article 6 of the Police-Chop Power Act is a provision empowering the police to conduct on-the-spot inspections and identity checks of people, and such actions may only be taken when there is "reasonable suspicion" and "necessity." Article 27 empowers the police, while exercising their powers in order to eliminate hazards, to temporarily drive away or prohibit entry of persons and vehicles causing obstruction. Both are limits on police powers when executing "official duties," but neither is a legal basis "empowering" the police to "establish restricted zones." Moreover, if this is a "private dispute" as the Ministry of Justice claims over and over, and the police are also "executing official duties" pursuant to the Compulsory Enforcement Act, then invoking the Police-Chop Power Act in the context of a "private dispute" is very bizarre. Furthermore, pursuant to Articles 124 and 125 of the Compulsory Enforcement Act, which mutatis mutandis apply Article 55, civil compulsory enforcement procedures shall in principle not be carried out by the court "after sunset and before sunrise." Under such circumstances, exactly whose orders were the police acting under? If, as rumors say, the Ministry of Justice issued an official document dispatching them, is this not "being both a player and a referee," failing to understand conflict of interest recusal, and further utilizing the obedience of the police, with prosecutors subsequently handling the investigation—is this truly appropriate?

3. Government agencies violate General Comments No. 4 and No. 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, severely infringing upon the substantive and procedural guarantees of the people's "right to adequate housing"

   The Two Covenants possess domestic legal effect and rank higher than ordinary laws. Not only is this status conferred by the Enforcement Act of the Two Covenants passed by the Legislative Yuan, but it has also become a current consensus. This was affirmed by 10 international human rights experts at the end of February this year, who adopted paragraph 10 of their concluding observations: "10. The experts warmly welcome the fact that the Republic of China (Taiwan) has accepted without reservations the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and has enacted an enforcement act providing that when other laws conflict with the Covenants, the Covenants all rank higher than laws but lower than the Constitution." As the competent authority for the Enforcement Act of the Two Covenants and the secretariat for the initial state report international review of the Two Covenants, the Ministry of Justice ought rightfully to "administer in accordance with the (Enforcement Act of the Two Covenants) law." It must pay special attention to the Huaguang Community—an informal settlement in Taipei—which was a matter of concern to the experts in paragraph 47 of their concluding observations, and comply with the recommendation in paragraph 49: "Stop forced evictions of residents before providing alternative housing that complies with General Comments Nos. 4 and 7 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to ensure that residents are not rendered homeless." However, from the two forced demolition incidents in the Huaguang Community, we sorrowfully and angrily see that the Ministry of Justice and police agencies completely disregard this domestic legislation known as the Enforcement Act of the Two Covenants, illegally infringing upon the human right to housing. According to paragraph 8(a) of General Comment No. 4 of the ICESCR: "Legal security of tenure. Tenure takes a variety of forms, including rental (public and private) accommodation, cooperative housing, lease, owner-occupier housing, emergency housing and informal settlements, including occupation of land or property. Whatever the form of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. States parties should consequently take immediate measures, aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon those persons and households currently lacking such protection, in genuine consultation with affected persons and groups;" Nevertheless, the Ministry of Justice did not engage in genuine consultation with the residents of the Huaguang Community; instead, it used litigation to eliminate so-called "above-ground structures." Moreover, even while knowing that the Taipei City Government was already coordinating relevant resettlement plans with the residents, the Ministry of Justice still insisted on forcibly demolishing and evicting the residents prior to resettlement. Disregarding the procedural and substantive guarantees of the right to housing regulated by the Two Covenants, the Ministry of Justice has set the worst and most terrible example for government agencies at all levels in implementing the Two Covenants.

Here, we solemnly call upon all fellow citizens and friends who truly care about this land of Taiwan to stop stigmatizing the residents and supporters of the Huaguang Community, as well as the college students and citizens arrested as a result. Our country is making the worst possible example and infringement upon the rule of law and the people; on the contrary, it is this group of people who are unwilling to remain apathetic and silent, and who have stepped forward to defend our homeland and the rule of law! What requires deep reflection is the party-state capitalist system that is becoming increasingly closely integrated and thereby oppressing the basic rights of the people to survival, life, and livelihood. We hope that through our sorrowful appeal, we can bring more progressive values to Taiwanese society!

Attendees

Legislator T'ien Ch'iu-chin, Covenants Watch Deputy Convener Attorney Kao Jung-chih, Volunteer Defense Attorney Lu Shih-wei

Press Contacts

Attorney Kao Jung-chih 02-2523-1178