Dealing with Unfit Judges

A recent report in the China Times stated, "Possessing category-one drugs yet being convicted of transporting category-four drugs—the judges got the charges completely wrong, making an outrageous mistake!" The three judges presiding over this case were clearly derelict in their duties. This issue reflects a long-criticized systemic illness within the judiciary: the failure to seriously address judicial misconduct.

In Taiwan, judges are guaranteed lifetime tenure under the Constitution and cannot be dismissed unless subject to criminal sentencing or disciplinary sanctions. When cases do not involve criminal liability—such as judges improperly interacting with parties to a lawsuit or purchasing property from them—they often merely receive a warning or voluntarily step down as presiding judges. Aside from affecting their performance evaluations and salaries, these measures have no impact whatsoever on the exercise of their judicial duties, which is profoundly unfair to diligent and hardworking judges.

If judges violate the mandate of judicial duties entrusted to them by the Constitution, they not only consume judicial resources and waste taxpayers' money, but also cause the public to lose respect for the judicial system. In Taiwan, handling judges' violations of ethical standards is left to the judges' self-regulation committees. For instance, the judges in this case clearly violated the Judicial Code of Ethics provision that "judges shall diligently, cautiously, and earnestly perform their duties." How the judges' self-regulation committee handles this matter is a cause for concern.

By the 1950s, the public in the United States reached the limit of their tolerance for lazy, hasty, and incompetent judges infesting the judiciary. They sparked calls to improve "mutual protection among officials" and to enhance public trust in the judiciary. In 1960, the State of California first proposed the "Judicial Administration Amendment" via a ballot measure, which passed by popular vote. It established an independent Commission on Judicial Performance composed of six citizens, two lawyers, and three judges. Its purpose is to "provide true protection from judges who are incompetent or guilty of misconduct or dereliction of duty," holding the power to investigate, censure, or remove judges. Through the pressure of external oversight, it effectively exercises the people's right to supervise the judiciary. Today, all fifty states in the U.S. have similar institutions.

The Commission on Judicial Performance accepts petitions from citizens and civic organizations, investigates and monitors judges for misconduct, and upon finding improper or questionable behavior, may impose—depending on the severity of the circumstances—an "advisory letter," "private admonishment," "public admonishment," "public censure," "forced retirement," or "removal from office." Judges who are dissatisfied with disciplinary sanctions may appeal to the California Supreme Court.

Because judges wield vast state judicial powers, carelessness or laziness will severely undermine the righteous image of judicial fairness and impartiality. Therefore, an external oversight mechanism should be established, featuring an independent disciplinary committee composed largely of civilian members to exercise robust supervision. Lawyers hold no public power and operate strictly as an independent profession. To ensure lawyers' independence from government interference so that they may fulfill their role as an external check, countries worldwide without exception respect the "self-governance and self-regulation" of the legal profession.

However, Taiwan does the exact opposite: it leaves judges to internal "self-governance and self-regulation" while subjecting independent lawyers to external oversight. Judges, who wield public power, are ethically governed by a mere five provisions in the "Judicial Code of Ethics," which is a clear imbalance compared to the fifty ethical provisions governing lawyers.

In particular, the Judicial Reform Foundation commissioned experts to draft the external oversight-focused "Draft Judges Act," which was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in early November last year. Yet, the Judicial Yuan's version has repeatedly failed to be submitted to the Legislative Yuan, preventing the bill from being deliberated. We call for prompt legislation to protect the public from the harms inflicted by lazy, hasty, or incompetent judges.

※ Published in: China Times / A15 / Forum