Justice, Open the Mic!

Media outlets and citizens lined up overnight to witness the historic moment of the first former president testifying in court. However, due to limited courtroom space, public gallery seats were scarce, leaving many excluded and protesting. This has once again sparked debate over why court proceedings are not opened to live broadcast by electronic media. The "camera effect"—whether it poses an "interference" to judges' independent adjudication—has always been one of the focal points in the endless debate over whether to permit or ban courtroom broadcasting, while other technical issues, such as the maintenance of courtroom order, are secondary. This issue highlights the cognitive gap between the "judiciary" and the "media," with divergent views leaving no consensus.

In fact, two years ago, when the retrial of the Su Chien-ho three death row inmates case held its first hearing, the court set a precedent by routing courtroom activities to external video feeds to meet the public's need for attendance and media reporting, effectively creating an "indirect" broadcast. The Hsin Jui-tu case is a judicial case through and through, but under the strong glare of the political spotlight, probably no one would naively treat it as a purely "individual case." The judiciary should not be subject to improper political interference, but neither should it lack defensive political judgment; even judges can hardly remain entirely outside of politics. When highly controversial, politically sensitive judicial cases run the risk of being "displaced and leveraged" by various political support factions, how the court defensively avoids being instrumentalized is precisely the subjectivity awareness indispensable to the judiciary's painstaking pursuit of judicial independence. The "impartial" court expected by the people can only be realized as the court accumulates it bit by bit through the "openness" and "fairness" of proceedings in every single case. The presiding judge in the Hsin Jui-tu case, motivated by the mission to discover the truth and realize justice, exercised ex officio authority to summon Mr. Li Teng-hui to court to testify in order to clarify ambiguities in the case and realize the fairness of the obligation of any citizen (including a former head of state) to testify in court, which is commendable. However, conducting an open trial by limiting the number of public attendees, while lawful, is far from sufficient. After all, few judicial cases have their courtroom proceedings so "beloved" by the media. This is not merely a matter of protecting freedom of the press and the right to know; from the perspective of "rule of law education," this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, yet a conservative judiciary has repeatedly missed it. If the process of Mr. Li Teng-hui's testimony were broadcast via electronic media, with footage of the prosecution and defense conducting cross-examination transmitted to every home and office, in addition to satisfying public curiosity about the Hsin Jui-tu case, it would also incidentally raise the visibility of the strengths of cross-examination under the new Code of Criminal Procedure. The educational effect of such media is far broader and more effective than any promotional efforts for new systems by the Judicial Yuan, and it would also help build public trust in the judiciary.

In the past, the judiciary has experienced setbacks due to mishandling certain major socially prominent cases, further fueling public skepticism regarding judicial fairness. Recently, the results of judicial reforms have gradually become apparent. Facing landmark events similar to the Hsin Jui-tu case, the judiciary can no longer afford to lose ground. Perhaps it should moderately loosen its stance conceptually, not only accelerating the pace of judicial reform to "start moving," but also "opening the mic" for judicial proceedings, and winning public trust in the judiciary through more "open" image marketing.

※ Published in: Liberty Times