Suggestions for the Taiwanese People Regarding Judicial Faith

For more than ten years, upholding our expectations for the judiciary, the Judicial Reform Foundation has tirelessly offered earnest initiatives and necessary oversight regarding the judicial system. In Taiwan, where legal education still needs to take root and the concept of the rule of law has room to grow, we hope to uphold our professional dedication and passion for the law, injecting more living springs of the rule of law into this land.

In recent years, prosecutors investigating government officials' corruption scandals have repeatedly caused widespread public doubt and distrust. The Judicial Reform Foundation is deeply concerned about this phenomenon. Especially following the conclusion (filing) of the recent "Taiwan Land Development Corporation (TLDC) Scandal" and "SOGO Scandal"—where the handling prosecutors stated that the actions "clearly have moral flaws," yet "there are still no specific pieces of evidence or laws to warrant prosecution"—public opinion and the media have obviously boiled over. Subsequently, the confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties and society at large seems to be on the rise. Furthermore, the "State Affairs Special Fund" case, whose investigation is about to come to a close, is viewed as the "final decisive battle," and "judicial actions" seem poised to sway Taiwan's entire political landscape, giving the nation the atmosphere of "a storm brewing and sweeping through the pavilions." As chance would have it, the judiciary may become the resolution point or the detonating point of social conflicts. As a monitoring group for judicial reform, we truly cannot fail to issue certain statements and expectations at this critical moment for the nation's rule of law and judicial system:

First, modern states were successively established through strenuous efforts to overthrow imperial rule. The core goal they sought was to break away from "autocracy" and introduce the "rule of law," hoping that through explicit legal provisions, the arbitrary actions of national leaders could be prevented, allowing the people to live and work in peace. They further hoped that through "substantive rule of law" that protects "fundamental human rights," the concrete manifestation of "human dignity" would be fully realized. Therefore, a state under the rule of law respects the law and emphasizes the system, transforming expectations of "sage monarchs and wise ministers" into faith in the law and the system. Hence, our primary appeal to the people is not to place excessive expectations and fantasies on "individuals," whether they be those in power or even law enforcement officers; similarly, there is no need to launch attacks and criticisms targeting "individuals." Rather than longing for national salvation in the form of a "savior's descent," it is better to look forward to all citizens devoting themselves more to rooting legal education, cultivating legal concepts, and establishing and adhering to the overall national legal system.

Second, "criminal liability" is vastly different from "civil liability and administrative liability," and differs even more from "political liability." The establishment of "criminal liability" requires strict evidentiary procedures in the determination of facts, and the application of law must consider principles such as the "presumption of innocence," "in dubio pro reo" (when in doubt, rule in favor of the accused), and "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali" (no crime without a law). Therefore, if political rhetoric or media pundits' inferences regarding the facts of a case cannot pass the test of evidence, they obviously will not give rise to the question of whether criminal liability exists. As for whether one should bear political liability and moral condemnation, it is truly not something that criminal law can dictate. Furthermore, based on the nature of judicial adjudication, it will inevitably produce outcomes favorable to one side and unfavorable to the other in the end. Unless it can truly be pointed out where facts, evidence, law, or legal principles deviate from reason and common sense, then despite lingering inner grievances, one should calmly accept the results of the evaluation made by an objective, professional, and impartial judicial organ. This is nothing less than the most fundamental faith the people can have in the rule of law, and the most concrete manifestation of that faith.

Finally, laws cannot enforce themselves. No matter how brilliant the system or how thorough the law, it still cannot absolutely prevent those who deliberately distort or exploit loopholes. Especially since the people have entrusted the ultimate power of judicial adjudication to judges and prosecutors, judges, prosecutors, and other judicial personnel should not belittle themselves nor slight the public's faith in the rule of law and expectations of the judiciary. In major historical cases, they should naturally display a magnanimous historical demeanor and exhibit an attitude of "courage to take responsibility." Especially in legal documents demonstrating their own fact-finding, legal application, and perspectives on disputed points, there should no longer be evasion, hedging, or prevarication—attempts to hide the responsibilities they ought to bear by virtue of their duties and mission behind the narrow-minded framework of abstract professional legal language.

In summary, the people's earnest expectations of the judiciary clearly show that the public still harbors a basic level of hope and expectation for the nation's judicial system. If this is truly recognized as a crucial "critical moment for the rule of law" for the nation, judicial personnel should not only be encouraged to strictly observe professional boundaries under the law, but they should also empathize with the people's "comprehensive and holistic" "demand for justice" and display without evasion in their written documents the "sense of mission" and "view of justice" of someone who is truly worthy of being a national citizen and a professional jurist. In addition, we also encourage our fellow citizens to truly cast off the lingering ideological poison of "sage monarchs and wise ministers," break the myth of "individualized" faith in those in power and law enforcement officers, and instead channel their passion and energy into the "educational cultivation, conceptual establishment, and systemic design" of the "rule of law," truly building a rule-of-law society that values systems and respects the law. Only in this way can we face the turbulent trials of today's national "critical moment for the rule of law," and subsequently sublimate the turmoil into an opportunity and nourishment for further deepening Taiwan's democracy and rule of law.