Statement by the Judicial Reform Foundation Regarding Grand Justices Involved in a Influence-Peddling Case

According to news reports, the Judicial Yuan applied double standards in handling the judicial influence-peddling cases involving Chen Che-nan and Liang Po-hsun. While it disciplined and thoroughly investigated Lee Wen-cheng, a 'minor judge' of the High Court, it not only failed to thoroughly investigate the 'Grand Justices' rumored to be involved, but allegedly obstructed the investigation by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office—which is utterly unbelievable.

Based on its standpoint of civic monitoring of the judiciary, our Foundation puts forward the following statements and expectations:

First, news reports stated that “the Judicial Yuan, worried that the Taipei District Prosecutors Office (TDPO) would summon Judge Chen Chun-chiu —who refused to be influenced—and that he would leak startling inside information, dispatched Department of Government Ethics Director-General Chen Shi-ti to negotiate with the handling prosecutor on whether Chen Chun-chiu could avoid being summoned. Consequently, the TDPO truly did not summon Chen Chun-chiu, but only summoned Lee Wen-cheng.” This account is clear and precise, naming specific individuals and being easily verifiable. With newspaper media making such concrete accusations, the Judicial Yuan can no longer afford to ignore the matter! If such events did not occur, these reports have already severely damaged the judicial image, and the Judicial Yuan should promptly demand that the publishing media issue a correction, and further provide explanations and apologies! Turning a blind eye and delaying will only deepen the damage to the judiciary's image and deal another heavy blow to public trust in the judiciary!

Second, if the media accusation that the Judicial Yuan obstructed the investigation by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office is true, and unless the Judicial Yuan can provide any reasonable explanation—and should it simply be as the reports state, that the investigation was obstructed out of fear that “startling inside information would burst forth”—then whether “high-ranking judicial officials” actually intervened to peddle influence is no longer the primary question. The relevant personnel who obstructed the investigation have already committed a severe and obvious dereliction of duty. Therefore, both the person who issued the orders and Department of Government Ethics Director-General Chen Shi-ti should immediately resign from public office to demonstrate accountability.

Third, the public holds high expectations for judges, and even more fervently expects Grand Justices to interpret the Constitution, protect human rights, and uphold justice. For judges, whose duty is adjudication and who symbolize objectivity, to be suspected of influence-peddling has already severely damaged the judicial image—let alone Grand Justices, who occupy an even loftier position? In truth, whether ordinary judges or Grand Justices, when dealing with cases under judicial trial, they should exercise a high degree of vigilance and restraint based on their professional knowledge and self-expectations. If they recklessly overstep or lightly provoke controversy, they not only harm the moral sentiments of the public, but also cannot escape the blame of failing public expectations. Therefore, if Judge Lee Wen-cheng's contact with Chen Che-nan is true, and if it is also true that the Grand Justice expressed concern to presiding judge Chen Chun-chiu, then regardless of whether there was actually a request for the presiding judge to deliver a specific judgment outcome, both instances already constitute inappropriate conduct 'under the plum tree and in the melon patch.' While these actions may not yet warrant criminal prosecution or justify demanding their resignation, asking them to leave adjudicative duties is hardly excessive. After all, the essence of adjudication is to distinguish right from wrong, and to evaluate fairness; core judicial operations cannot tolerate even the slightest shred of doubt!

In summary, the accusations in the news reports are clear and precise, and the Judicial Yuan cannot afford to ignore them. If the accusations are untrue, the Judicial Yuan should immediately issue a clarification and demand that the media correct its reports. If the accusations are accurate, any Judicial Yuan officials who obstructed the TDPO's investigation—whether the Director-General of Government Ethics, or even the Secretary-General or the President—should resign to show accountability. Finally, if the involvement in influence-peddling by Judge Lee Wen-cheng or the rumored Grand Justices can only prove that contact indeed occurred without any actual influence-peddling, asking them to step away from core adjudicative work is not asking too much. Of course, if the act of “influence-peddling” is true, whether ordinary judges or Grand Justices, disciplinary action, removal from office, or even facing criminal prosecution and trial are naturally matters of course.