Judicial Lobbying Should Be Curbed by Legislation

According to news reports, the Liang Po-hsun and Chen Che-nan cases have drawn in suspicions of judicial lobbying, with rumors that a so-called "high-ranking judicial official" expressed "concern" to the presiding judge. Some presiding judges who received such "concern" at the time are currently "maintaining silence," but could potentially "step forward and testify in accordance with the law" at any moment. Meanwhile, the Judicial Yuan, constrained by the unclear truth and the gravity of the matter, struggles to provide a clear and convincing account to the public. Alas, what a "gloomy" "picture" this is.

Assuming for a moment that the facts reported in the press are true, I would simply like to offer a few suggestions: First, from a legal perspective, "expressing concern" over judicial cases involving interests is a matter of anti-corruption law. Moreover, pursuant to Article 7 of the Anti-Corruption Act, that "high-ranking judicial official" would also face a 50% enhancement of sentence. As for the "indignant" judge, they cannot afford to lightly overlook the "offense of shielding" or the "offense of knowing yet failing to report" under Articles 13 and 14 of the same Act—these are serious felonies. When considering moral sentiments or professional ethics, that presiding judge must feel "utterly humiliated," and their core area of judicial expertise has been violated. Therefore, by law, sentiment, and reason, the presiding judge should immediately "step forward and testify." If even judges are untrustworthy, there is nothing left to believe in a constitutional state ruled by law!

Second, if a judge's private gathering is "unexpectedly" intervened by individuals with ulterior motives, giving rise to appearances of impropriety, judges often find it truly difficult to defend themselves. In fact, as long as the Department of Government Ethics provides a relevant "reporting system," it will not only offer a way for law-abiding and self-restrained judges to "protect themselves," but also safeguard judicial prestige and prevent them from being dragged into unnecessary suspicions.

Third, I cannot help but once again call for the early passage of the "Judges Act," so that external oversight mechanisms can be introduced, and the negative impression of officials protecting one another may finally be mitigated and brought to an end.

Finally, while the phrase "the Queen's chastity" has its historical origins, the word "chastity" itself is rather inappropriate, carrying a hint of feudal patriarchy. If what we seek is judicial "perfection," why don't we simply stop using such language?

※ Published in: China Times / Forum