Addressing the backlog of judges' cases requires targeted remedies rather than panic-driven measures

The recent debate between Minister of Justice Ch'en Ting-nan and high-ranking officials of the Judicial Yuan regarding the speed at which judges handle cases sparked heated discussions across society, much like "a fire in the middle of winter." From the perspective of NGOs engaged in judicial reform, however, we truly hope to see less rhetoric and petty disputes between the Ministry and the Yuan, and more sound solutions to solve the problems.

Of course, the Minister of Justice's remarks that "organized crime and corruption cases should be tried and concluded swiftly" resonated with many citizens. On the other hand, the Judicial Yuan raising the high banner of Article 80 of the Constitution—"Judges shall be independent and above partisan control, in accordance with the law, free from any interference"—is indeed well-founded and reasonable. However, with both the Ministry and the Yuan having their own arguments and stances, we cannot help but sigh: How on earth can a Minister of Justice who frequently "makes remarks" about specific individual cases and equates judicial organs with investigative organs set a "model" for our nation's democracy and rule of law? Similarly, a considerable number of judges and judicial administrative personnel constantly elevate "judicial independence"—an instrumental institutional safeguard (Note: judicial independence is at best merely one of the means to pursue fair judgments)—to an absolute degree, and even use it as a grandiose excuse to "resist management" and "resist supervision." How can such a distortion of the true meaning of judicial independence ever fulfill judicial reform?

In fact, regardless of whether Minister Ch'en's recent remarks were appropriate or well-received, the Judicial Yuan and judges at all levels must deeply recognize that the public's tolerance for poor judicial efficiency and low-quality rulings has reached an almost unbearable point. Everyone must seriously face this issue; otherwise, the day when the judiciary wins the public's trust will remain indefinitely out of reach.

Perhaps many individuals (including Minister Ch'en) believe that demanding judges to "try and decide cases swiftly" is the cure for the backlog of cases. However, we must respond to this seriously: blindly demanding judges to try and decide cases swiftly not only easily leads to perfunctoriness, but also increases the appeal rate of litigants and the burden on higher courts, doing nothing to resolve the backlog. Therefore, resolving case backlogs must start from the fundamentals, and we offer the following points for the consideration of advanced experts from all sectors:

First, where there is an organization, there is a need for management. This is a fact that thousands of judges nationwide must recognize, and it is also the unshirkable duty of judicial administrative personnel. However, what must be emphasized here is that "the core of the judiciary is trial work," and the value of the judicial administration system should lie in assisting judges in establishing a high-quality trial environment. Therefore, how to introduce corporate management principles to reduce inefficiencies in judges' administrative work; how to increase the hiring of judicial assistants to alleviate judges' workloads; and how to encourage judges in trials to use appraisers, expert witnesses, or even expert participant systems to assist judges in forming their inner convictions—these are management measures that the Judicial Yuan should strive to promote to build a high-quality trial environment on the one hand. On the other hand, because they can effectively eliminate the causes that lead judges to delay cases, the problem of backlogs will naturally dissipate. In this way, the majority of judges can be spared from being overwhelmed by paperwork all day long, and litigants can also obtain "instant justice." Wouldn't that be a win-win for everyone?

Second, we must admit that judging is an arduous task that often plunges ordinary mortals into intense inner struggles. Especially when facing very complex and difficult individual cases, it is definitely not enough for judges to merely have a sense of responsibility and justice without practical case-handling experience and professional competence. Therefore, how to restructure the organizational framework into a pyramidal system through the "Judicial Yuan Organization Act," the "Court Organization Act," and the "Judges Act," so that senior and outstanding judges are willing to move from second- and third-instance courts to first-instance courts—which are most exposed to the original appearance of facts—to engage in trial work, while allowing junior and less experienced judges to serve as panel judges or assistant judges to strengthen their experience, will surely increase the public's chance of swiftly obtaining fair judgments and reduce the probability of case appeals.

Furthermore, in order to accelerate the conclusion of major cases of high social concern, judges of courts at all levels should also observe public sentiment, share hardships together, and respond to fervent social expectations through special work allocation methods! Taking the Taipei District Court and Panchiao District Court as examples, judges in these two courts once reached a consensus that "judges handling major cases may be exempted from receiving new case assignments for one year, but cannot be transferred before concluding that case." In this way, judges assigned to major cases can expedite their work, and other judges in the same court can share the excess caseload, avoiding infringement upon the rights and interests of other litigants. In the current imperfect trial environment, having such dedicated and capable judges striving to solve case backlogs is truly something for the public to cheer for!

Finally, if all the aforementioned methods are exhausted and still fail to resolve the problem of excessive case backlogs for certain judges, we must solemnly appeal that "unqualified judges should be phased out," and a mechanism to effectively weed out unqualified judges must be established as soon as possible! After all, the judiciary bears the public's deep expectation for "justice and equity," and it truly cannot tolerate a minority of unqualified judges obstructing the progress of the entire judicial reform.

※ Published in: China Times