Please Do Not Make Judges Carry "Clogs" and "Files" Anymore! Solve the Problem of Court Case Backlogs Through Legislation

The Judicial Yuan disciplined eight judges for delayed case handling in one fell swoop, which seemingly acts as a concrete response to public discussions regarding the backlog of cases in courts. In recent years, the crux of judicial malpractice lies in the three major maladies of "corruption," "interference," and "sloppiness." Regarding the court backlog issue where the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice have recently traded blame and criticized each other, Professor Su Yung-ch'in has long pointed out that "when cases accumulate rapidly, the victims are not only the judges, but also the parties involved. If judges must increase their case processing volume to reduce backlogs, not only may it exceed their physical and mental capacity, but the quality of case handling will also diminish, and the parties will only receive rather crude justice." If the court backlog problem is not resolved, it will cause a "submergence" of the judiciary (being overwhelmed by unbearable and gigantic case volumes), and judges will have no choice but to be sloppy just to save their own lives. Some jokingly remark that even if judges could take a vacation and travel, they would still be forced to carry "clogs" and "files," unable to let go of their cases and unable to attain freedom.

The problem of court case backlogs is a civilization disease of modern states, and European and American countries also deeply suffer from courts being unable to conduct prompt trials due to backlogs. Faced with this chronic illness accumulated over a long period, it truly is "a seven-year illness seeking a three-year moxa," and expecting an instant cure that shows effects immediately is simply impossible. The ruling and opposition parties must not lose their patience momentarily due to the influence of certain socially watched high-profile individual cases and speak recklessly, and the Judicial Yuan must also avoid taking a knife to a few judges with a "killing the chicken to scare the monkeys" mindset, thereby harming the innocent. We must admit that the problem of court backlogs has grown so large that it can no longer be solved by traditional legal professionals alone; "the judiciary should not be blind to efficiency." How to approach this from the perspective of court management science and tackle the severe problem of the court's lack of efficiency through a two-pronged approach of institutions and personnel is the top priority.

The judicial authorities are quite clear about the malady of court backlogs, and it cannot be said that they have no countermeasures or solutions (such as establishing a pyramid-shaped litigation system). For this judicial reform issue, which is by no means fresh, scholars have long proposed several prescriptions available (such as increasing the quota of judges, enacting a Non-Contentious Legal Officers Act, raising litigation fees, adopting partial mandatory attorney representation, strengthening out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms, adjusting court organization and trial tier systems, professional division of labor among judges, simplifying judgment documents, etc.), but the problem lies in the fact that laws come from multiple sources, and almost any reform measure cannot avoid individual statutory amendments. Given the current situation where the Legislative Yuan's own "case backlog" is also quite serious (the Legislative Yuan should not laugh at the fifty steps while it has taken a hundred itself), one dares not hope that delayed legislation will contribute anything to the ideal of prompt trials.

Professor Wang Chao-p'eng once suggested considering emulating the United States to enact a "Speedy Trial Act" (Federal Speedy Trial Act). While this could indeed guarantee the parties' right to receive a prompt trial, the heavy backlog of old cases across all levels of courts is currently too deep-rooted to return. How to effectively "clear the warehouse" and prevent judges from collapsing due to the work burden of "malfunctioning case turnover" should also be resolved simultaneously through legislation. The current reform approach of individually amending or enacting laws across various statutes is likely to fall short of urgent needs due to inefficient legislation. Lawmakers should take extraordinary legislative measures in response to the court backlog problem, perhaps thoroughly resolving the currently accumulated old cases through a single omnibus legislation. Referring to Germany, which began implementing what is generally called the First Burden-Relieving Act (Entlastungsgesetz) in 1975, and the United States, which also set up "court executives" at judicial conferences in federal districts, injecting fresh blood into the reform of court trial efficiency problems. Taiwan's court backlog problem is relatively even more severe, but the countermeasures adopted—perhaps due to the lack of long-term, complete empirical research—are obviously insufficiently powerful and centralized. The ruling and opposition parties should make good use of this moment of judicial reform to promptly devise and enact measures such as the "Judges' Case Burden Reduction Act" to relieve earnest judges who work tirelessly without sleep from their dire predicament, and to propel the pace of judicial reform forward rapidly.

"Justice delayed is justice denied." How to make justice realized "timely" requires a comprehensive review of policies on how to enhance judicial efficiency. On the one hand, "legislating to solve the problem of trial delays" is intended to encourage and foster the speed of future court trials, while on the other hand, "legislating to solve the problem of court backlogs" is carried out simultaneously to shake off the heavy burdens of the courts in the past. Just like the principle of driving, one must first ensure the direction is correct and then seek to increase speed; otherwise, blindly seeking speed while the direction is wrong will likely be of no avail.

※ Published in: China Times