Give Us "Rule of Law Education", or No Deal!

Ever since the presidential and vice-presidential shooting incident on March 19, political wrangling between the ruling and opposition parties has been ceaseless. Recently, the Legislative Yuan even hastily passed the "Special Committee Statute for the Truth Investigation of the March 19 Shooting Incident" (hereinafter the "March 19 Statute"), dubbed a "monster law," adding a shameful chapter to our nation's legal history.

During this period, the political rhetoric on the political stage has been dazzling. However, the simultaneous presentation of voices from different political stances is a symbol of progress in an open and democratic society, which is unobjectionable and not worth dwelling on. Yet, when political matters are sought to be resolved through judicial channels, it deserves close attention, because only an independent and robust judicial system free from political sway can serve as the foundation for national stability and prosperity. Following the recent litigation over the nullification of the election, the upcoming Council of Grand Justices review on whether the "March 19 Statute" is unconstitutional will serve as premier material for conducting rule of law education.

Rule of law education in our country has long degenerated into mere rote memorization of statutory provisions or intimidation-based education, yielding zero results. Many citizens have only a half-baked understanding of current laws and institutional systems. Looking around, domestic television programs mostly present erroneous examples—even getting the basic judicial robes worn by judges wrong, not to mention absurd plots where judges interrogate defendants inside their homes. Alternatively, people can only absorb concepts of law and courtrooms from Hollywood films, leading many citizens to hold misconceptions, such as believing our country adopts a jury system or that all attorneys are effortlessly eloquent.

Therefore, out of prudence, the Grand Justices have decided to hold three public oral argument sessions (on October 14, 27, and 29) regarding the constitutionality of the "urgent disposition" and the "March 19 Statute." Since the Grand Justices consider the review of this statute so important that—for the first time in six years—they are holding oral argument sessions once again, these proceedings should not merely be open to those present in the gallery. Instead, without disrupting courtroom order, electronic media should be permitted to broadcast the proceedings live, allowing citizens the opportunity to understand them directly. This is not only because the oral argument sessions of the Council of Grand Justices present a rare opportunity for rule of law education; opening up broadcasts also carries a declarative effect—the Constitution is no longer inaccessible, and the public has both the right and the capacity to understand it.

Furthermore, while ordinary courts are restricted by Article 90 of the Court Organization Act and cannot permit live broadcasts, Article 33 of the Act Governing the Adjudication of Cases by the Council of Grand Justices only states that provisions regarding Constitutional Court procedures shall "apply mutatis mutandis" to the Court Organization Act. Thus, the Council of Grand Justices has greater room for maneuver and should be able to decide to permit broadcasts.

The general public possesses far too little understanding of the Constitution, and the participants in these oral arguments are largely top-tier elites. If the rare proceedings of the Constitutional Court could be publicly broadcast, enabling our citizens to gain a greater understanding and discussion of our judicial system and constitutional spirit, then the massive social costs expended thus far on account of the March 19 shooting incident would not be a total loss.

※ Published in: 2004-10-10 / Liberty Times