Please Do Not Let the Legislative Yuan Become a Stumbling Block to Judicial Reform! Civil Society Groups Call on the Legislative Yuan to Swiftly Pass the Amendments to the Judicial Yuan Organization Act

For decades under our current judicial system, litigation cases have dragged on endlessly and the quality of adjudication has been widely criticized, resulting in a lack of public trust in the judiciary. Discerning individuals deeply recognize that these issues are closely connected to the poor structural design of our Taiwan judicial system. The judicial structure relates directly to the "positioning of the Judicial Yuan." The debate over this positioning has persisted for many years, culminating in the 1999 National Judicial Reform Conference composed of representatives from all walks of life, which resolved to construct a "pyramidal litigation system." This involves abolishing the three levels of final appellate courts and merging them into the Judicial Yuan, thereby transforming the Judicial Yuan into a judicial adjudication body. This would fulfill the spirit of Article 77 of the Constitution and align our system with those of other advanced rule-of-law nations, representing a monumental judicial reform resolution.

Following this, the Judicial Yuan invited scholars and experts to revise the Judicial Yuan Organization Act in accordance with the aforementioned resolution, submitting it to the Legislative Yuan for review during the previous legislative session. Although the draft act completed its first reading in the Legislative Yuan, unfortunately, certain legislators still harbor numerous doubts regarding the reform ideals of this act, preventing the completion of the legislative process to this day. We believe that the judiciary aims to pursue justice and must not become a political tool. Only through a sound and efficient judiciary can the people's right to litigation receive substantial protection. An inefficient and ossified judiciary will only erode social stability day by day and weaken our national strength. The key to building an efficient judicial system currently lies in the Legislative Yuan.

If we hope for litigation cases to proceed and conclude appropriately and efficiently, constructing an efficient pyramidal organization and litigation structure is our only choice. The Judicial Yuan's version of the provisions concerning the pyramidal structure of the Judicial Yuan is the starting point toward an efficient judiciary. Upholding the philosophy of "justice for the people," civil society groups earnestly implore cross-party legislators to cast aside prejudices, prioritize the nation and state, and swiftly pass the amendments to the Judicial Yuan Organization Act during this session. Regarding recent media reports that certain political parties in the Legislative Yuan advocate delaying the implementation of this act by two years to give the Judicial Yuan sufficient time to digest the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court, we strongly disagree. Because the existing manpower of the final appellate courts will not decrease in the short term due to organizational changes, a two-year delay would not only trigger controversies violating Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 530, but also crowd out the progress of judicial reform. We deem this absolutely unacceptable.

Furthermore, we are completely baffled by certain legislators repeatedly claiming that the Grand Justices have "no authority" via Interpretation No. 530 to demand that the Legislative Yuan enact legislation within a two-year deadline. The practice of the constitutional review body declaring laws to be "invalid by a specified deadline" or requiring the legislature to "legislate by a specified deadline" is not only very common in civil law countries such as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, but also has ample precedent in Taiwan. Regarding the declaration of laws as "invalid by a specified deadline," starting from Interpretation No. 218 rendered by the 5th cohort of Grand Justices to date, a total of 18 interpretations have declared laws invalid by a specified deadline (Interpretations Nos. 218, 224, 289, 300, 365, 366, 367, 373, 384, 390, 392, 423, 436, 450, 452, 454, 491, and 523); additionally, starting from Interpretation No. 455 rendered by the 6th cohort of Grand Justices to date, 6 interpretations have required the legislature to legislate by a specified deadline (Interpretations Nos. 455, 524, 530, 535, 549, and 551). In other words, the phenomenon where the legislative branch or competent authorities must promptly amend relevant regulations in accordance with the intent of Grand Justices' interpretations is not unique to Interpretation No. 530. It is truly regrettable that some legislators continually make a big issue out of this!

A few days ago, some political parties in the Legislative Yuan postponed the review work for the upcoming Grand Justices' personnel appointments to the next session under the pretext that "Grand Justices hold a lofty status and should exercise their consent power prudently." Yet now, while those words still echo, voices disregarding Grand Justices' Interpretation No. 530 have once again emerged in the Legislative Yuan, seemingly disrespecting the sacred constitutional authority vested in the Grand Justices to interpret the Constitution or laws. This is incomprehensible!

Civil society groups expect the Legislative Yuan to allow the Judicial Yuan Organization Act to be successfully implemented on October 1 of this year, in order to conform to the intent of Grand Justices' Interpretation No. 530, avoid constitutional controversies, lay a sound judicial foundation for our country, and allow the entire citizenry to enjoy a high-quality pyramidal judicial system at an early date. How fortunate for the nation, how fortunate for the people!

Joint Statement Organizations

Taiwan Judges Association
Association for Prosecutor Reform
Taiwan Bar Association
Taipei Bar Association
Civil Alliance for Grand Justices Monitoring
Judicial Reform Foundation