Former Chairman Ma Ying-jeou Will Surely Not Be the Last Victim!

Former Kuomintang Chairman Ma Ying-jeou was "summoned as a person of interest and interrogated as a defendant on the spot"; additionally, media reports indicated that prosecutors and police "coerced witnesses into committing perjury" in the South Link Line derailment case involving Lee Tai-an; moreover, just weeks ago, Chen Jung-chi was detained due to a mistaken identification in a national highway police-shooting and gun-robbery case. These incidents expose how investigative methods employed by our prosecutors and police remain as crude as ever, even after more than a decade of judicial reform and the ongoing improvement and establishment of due process under the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as the "rules of evidence," the "presumption of innocence," and the "duty to inform." Consequently, the Judicial Reform Foundation issues two main statements regarding the aforementioned events:

1. Prosecutors and Police Must Practice "Due Process" During Investigations
Situations involving even more severe human rights violations than those encountered by former Mayor Ma Ying-jeou during his investigation are even more common in routine criminal investigations. For instance, police frequently issue no written notice whatsoever for violations of Article 29 of the Act for the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youths (commonly known as the "online compensated dating" clause), instead merely demanding by phone that criminal suspects report directly to the police station for a "chat"; or, in criminal cases where the prosecution has already targeted a specific individual for major suspected involvement, they summon them in the capacity of a "witness" to avoid "alerting the prey"; furthermore, in many major criminal cases (such as the 319 Shooting Incident and the South Link Sabotage Case), reports repeatedly surface afterward of prosecutors and police engaging in improper inducement—whether toward persons of interest, witnesses, or defendants—to obtain testimony aligned with their investigative direction. In fact, if prosecutors and police comply with the procedural justice required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, they not only protect the rights of defendants but also safeguard themselves to a considerable extent from future accusations of improperly obtaining confessions, suggestive questioning, or the torture of defendants.

2. Prosecutors and Police Must Strictly Observe the Provisions Concerning the "Duty to Inform" in the Code of Criminal Procedure
According to Article 95 of our Code of Criminal Procedure, the interrogation of a "defendant" shall first inform them of the following matters: "1. The alleged crimes committed, and all the criminal charges. If it is deemed necessary to change the criminal charges after the information is given, the accused should be informed of such changes. 2. The right to remain silent, and that no statements should be made against his/her own will. 3. The right to retain an attorney.... 4. 4. The right to request an investigation on evidence favorable to the defendant...." However, investigative and police authorities frequently exploit the gray area of when the "defendant status" officially crystallizes, summoning individuals as witnesses (or "persons of interest") to evade the rights to which one is entitled in the capacity of a defendant. Furthermore, the reason the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes this duty to inform is focused on the critical significance of the "right to counsel" within a defendant's right to defense. Its normative purpose goes beyond formal "notification" in procedural terms; it must also ensure "substantive and effective defense protection." This means that once a party decides to retain a lawyer, state authorities must provide them with telephone contact options or even relevant lawyer information. Furthermore, no questioning concerning the matter may be conducted prior to the lawyer's arrival, and adequate consultation time must be granted to both the lawyer and the party after their arrival.

If even former Mayor Ma Ying-jeou, who has served as Minister of Justice, could potentially be summoned by the prosecution as a person of interest, informed on the spot, and then interrogated in the capacity of a defendant; if even former Mayor Ma must assert at that moment, "Where on earth am I supposed to find a lawyer right now?", then how much more so must the vast general public, or even impoverished and indigent criminal defendants, struggle when facing "suggestive questioning" or "surprise investigations" by agencies such as prosecutors, police, and investigators? The Code of Criminal Procedure is not merely a matter of amending laws to establish provisions such as the "duty to inform" and strengthen the status of defendants; its spirit of human rights protection still requires meticulous operationalization within the broad judicial process.

The Judicial Reform Foundation hereby calls upon prosecutors and police, regardless of the criminal case, to firmly uphold and practice "due process" as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigations, and to strictly observe the provisions regarding the "duty to inform" under the Code of Criminal Procedure, providing defendants with "substantive" assistance of the right to counsel. Otherwise, any legal provisions will forever remain empty talk, and human rights protection will forever be nothing more than a slogan! In addition, should Taiwanese society also begin to contemplate the mechanism advocated and promoted by numerous members of the legal community, whereby a lawyer "must" be present to accompany a defendant during their initial interrogation by prosecutors, police, and investigators?