Condemning the Brash Kidnapping of the Grand Justices

The Council of Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan held oral arguments in the Constitutional Court today regarding whether the "319 Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act" could be frozen via an "urgent injunction." The Judicial Reform Foundation has consistently held that constitutional review bodies should possess the procedural power to issue "provisional status quo" orders. The absence of such a mechanism in our Constitution constitutes a constitutional loophole. Based on the function of judicial power, the judicial organs certainly have room for self-formation regarding procedural rules. Therefore, supplementing the mechanism for a "provisional status quo provisional injunction" is both the power and the duty of the Council of Grand Justices.
 
As for whether the "319 Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act" can be frozen through an "urgent injunction," it should be judged on a case-by-case basis by the Council of Grand Justices in light of specific circumstances, and all sectors of society should await the Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation results.
 
Unexpectedly, while the Constitutional Court hearing was underway, Legislator Su Ying-kuei publicly stated that if the Grand Justices determine they have the power to create an urgent injunction and freeze the "319 Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act," he would not rule out publishing the names of Grand Justices who had lobbied for reconsideration. The Judicial Reform Foundation expresses its strong condemnation of this statement.
 
Taipei Society and the Judicial Reform Foundation had long demanded that if any Grand Justices were indeed involved in lobbying or intervention, Legislator Su should present evidence, and the involved Grand Justices should offer to resign. Unexpectedly, Legislator Su has consistently failed to produce evidence, yet at the moment when the thirteen Grand Justices officially convened, he insinuated that a certain Grand Justice was involved in improper lobbying. Even more outrageously, Legislator Su used this to threaten the Grand Justices, demanding they not issue an interpretation allowing for an urgent injunction. This is no different from the most aggressive form of judicial interference, akin to kidnapping the Grand Justices.
 
Taiwan Association for Human Rights and the Judicial Reform Foundation believe that holding oral arguments in the Constitutional Court is a rational forum for debate. Any demands should be presented in the courtroom. If Grand Justices are involved in illegal or unfair acts, the remedy should be to demand the recusal or replacement of that Grand Justice, rather than acting smugly while holding leverage over them, and demanding that the Grand Justices render a specific interpretation. Such threatening and kidnapping behavior should be spurned by everyone.
 
On the other hand, the Judicial Reform Foundation once again calls upon the Judicial Yuan—since the clouds of suspicion regarding Grand Justice lobbying remain unresolved—to broadcast the debate proceedings live. In addition to providing a rare opportunity for constitutional education, this would also allow the general public to dispel doubts and ensure the credibility of the Grand Justices.