Welcoming Rational Debate

The Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan held a constitutional court today to debate whether to issue an "interim injunction" regarding the Truth-Investigation Committee Act. The Coalition for Public Monitoring of the Truth-Investigation Committee expressed appreciation for the performance of the Grand Justices as well as both the affirmative and opposing parties.

Since the Truth-Investigation Committee (TIC) commenced operations on October 4, the executive branch strongly boycotted it, leaving the stalemate unresolved. The Coalition had previously urged both sides to take a step back, but to no avail. Furthermore, a conflict even broke out when the TIC paid a visit to the Tainan District Prosecutors Office. The Coalition believes that the irrational violent behavior in that incident should be condemned; however, the Coalition also deeply regrets that the TIC failed to adopt the Coalition's advice to operate in a low-profile manner, which ultimately exacerbated public conflict.

In contrast to the executive branch's refusal to cooperate, the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan were willing to accept the TIC's proposal by having the TIC participate as the opposing party in the debate over the "interim injunction," thereby enabling a rational debate. The Coalition believes this is the correct approach to eliminating confrontation and serves as a fine example for our citizens. After all, truth becomes clearer through debate, and the willingness of both sides to engage in calm debate according to court rules will undoubtedly have a positive significance for society as a whole.

In fact, regarding the "Truth-Investigation Committee Act" itself, the Coalition maintains its consistent position that the Act is indeed unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Coalition also calls for appropriate respect to be given to the formally existing TIC. Before the constitutional interpretation on the substantive merits is rendered, while freezing the TIC Act through an "interim injunction" by the Grand Justices is certainly one method, the TIC's own self-restraint would be an approach more readily accepted by all.

In other words, the Coalition views the focus of today's debate not on the outcome, but on the process. The TIC's willingness to attend the debate, and the Grand Justices' responsiveness in respecting its formal status to enable today's smooth debate, are both extremely positive developments. As to whether an "interim injunction" should be used to freeze the TIC's operations, the Coalition believes that the lack of provisions in current legal systems allowing the constitutional interpretation organ to issue "interim injunctions" constitutes a constitutional loophole, which the Grand Justices have the power and obligation to fill. However, whether there is a necessity for an "interim injunction" regarding the "Truth-Investigation Committee Act" should be determined wisely by the Grand Justices upon reviewing the specific circumstances of the case.

Nevertheless, the Coalition still emphasizes that before the constitutional interpretation is delivered, it hopes the TIC will operate at a low density and refrain from infringing upon the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and fundamental human rights. Therefore, the Coalition once again calls upon the TIC to focus its current efforts on operational preparations following a constitutionally compliant amendment of the Act. Sending personnel to attend the debate, allocating personnel and budgets, drafting investigation plans, and so forth all leave room for lawful operation; there is no need to rush into visiting and interviewing people everywhere and thus provoking controversy, nor is there any need to abuse political language or actions and needlessly invite criticism.

The Coalition believes that a rational debate is a good beginning, and hopes that all sectors of society can learn the value of rational interaction to gradually resolve social conflicts and antagonism. In addition, the Coalition also calls upon all sectors to leave the Grand Justices with a clean and neutral judicial space, refraining from speculatively judging, criticizing, or harming them based on political stances, and instead quietly await the outcome of the Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation.