A Deeply Disappointing Ruling! A Critique of the Taiwan High Court Civil Division 9's Dismissal of Lien and Sung's Election Lawsuits

The Judicial Reform Foundation (hereinafter JRF) issued a statement tonight (the 24th) regarding the ruling by the judges of Civil Division 9 of the Taiwan High Court, which dismissed the lawsuits filed by Lien Chan and James Soong for nullification of the election and nullification of the election results on the grounds that "the Central Election Commission had not yet announced the list of elected candidates when Lien and Sung filed their lawsuits," as follows:

Although today's ruling by Civil Division 9 of the High Court has a basis in law, considering social turmoil, public expectations, and the function that the judiciary ought to serve in substantively resolving disputes, the JRF remains disappointed by this ruling from Civil Division 9 of the High Court!

Specifically, while it is true that Lien and Sung did not wait for the Central Election Commission (CEC) to announce the list of elected candidates before filing their lawsuits for nullification of the election and nullification of the election results, as required by Articles 102 and 104 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act, such procedural defects could have been cured after the CEC's announcement. In other words, this was a problem expected to be resolved in a short time, and the High Court panel could even have waited for the CEC's announcement before holding a hearing and asking Lien and Sung to cure the defect. Unexpectedly, Civil Division 9 of the High Court completely ignored social turmoil and public expectations, choosing instead the "easiest" way to handle the matter without solving the problem at all. This cannot help but raise the question: Is this kind of judiciary too irresponsible and lacking in backbone?! In fact, from the perspective of protecting the people's right of access to court, the judiciary's procedural requirements should be interpreted broadly, retaining a degree of flexibility to prevent disputes from failing to be resolved promptly and effectively. Especially under current circumstances where neither "administrative recount" nor "recount via the President's issuance of an emergency order" is attainable, the judiciary has instead used procedure to shirk its duty, failing to actively and diligently fulfill its function of substantively resolving disputes. Consequently, this may not only exacerbate social unrest, but the image of the judiciary may also suffer a severe blow as a result! Can such a reckless ruling be absolved simply by invoking "judicial independence"?

Just yesterday (the 23rd), the JRF publicly appealed that this case is a landmark matter that will either establish or destroy judicial credibility, and that judges must not treat it lightly. Yet today, we are met with such a deeply disappointing outcome! Shouldn't judicial personnel reflect: before demanding that all sectors of society cherish and respect the judiciary, shouldn't they first shape a judiciary worthy of the people's trust and respect?!