To Excellent Judges, We Will Never Hesitate to Give You the Constitutionally Guaranteed Golden Rice Bowl!

Article 81 of the Constitution provides: "Judges shall hold office for life. No judge shall be dismissed except by reason of criminal conviction, disciplinary sanction, or declaration of interdiction. No judge shall be suspended, transferred, or have their salary reduced, except in accordance with the law." At the inception of constitutional government, "independent adjudication in accordance with the law" may have been difficult to achieve, so life tenure was granted to judges in the hope that, free from any worries, they could truly fulfill the role of "the last line of defense for justice."

Times have changed. While judicial "ethics and integrity" may no longer be a major issue, and cases of corruption are increasingly rare, shouldn't "ethics" and "integrity" for judges—the very embodiment of "justice"—be merely the most basic, passing requirements?

Recently, the Liberty Times reported that cases of judicial corruption still occur. There was also a judge at the Taoyuan District Court who accepted a watch worth NT$300,000 (as established by the judgment facts). Although the charges of corruption and fraud were ultimately acquitted, the act of "accepting the watch" appeared to have indeed taken place. Yet, regarding whether to approve the judge's reinstatement, the Judicial Yuan stated it still needed to "study the matter (re-evaluate it)!?"

Although the judge was acquitted in criminal court, since their integrity is flawed (in the words of the Taiwan High Court's 93年度上更(一)字第219號 Judgment: "bringing disgrace to the judicial office"), can such a person still sit on the "bench"? Is it really that difficult to ask such a person to leave the sacred work of adjudication? No, we believe this is not the true meaning of Article 81 of the Constitution. Becoming a judge must come with ground rules for "being qualified" to be one. It is not that the Judicial Yuan has not tried to set rules—the draft Judges Act has been lying dormant for a decade, eagerly awaiting the day it is finally born.

The "Judges Act" regulates the selection, training, and removal of judges, refining and concretizing the spirit of Articles 80 and 81 of the Constitution. The Judges Act aims not only to solve the basic problem of "anti-corruption," but also to "anti-carelessness." There are no shortage of responsible and dedicated judges, and we frequently hear of judges falling ill and dying from overwork due to their cases. How can it be fair and reasonable to afford excellent judges and derelict judges the same treatment and status?

Judicial Yuan President Weng stated that being merciful to corrupt judges is being cruel to the people. That statement couldn't be more correct; however, that is only a score of 60 (a passing grade). What we must also remind ourselves of is this: acquiescing to careless judges is "ignoring" conscientious judges! The passage and implementation of the Judges Act is merely the first step. This first step has already taken a decade—can the public really continue to wait indefinitely for this "first step"? Can conscientious judges really be ignored for another decade?

※ Published in: Liberty Times / Free Talk Plaza. The original title of this article was <Discussing the "Judges Act" from the Perspective of a 300,000-NTD Watch>