The Judicial Privileges of Legislators

The Legislative Yuan session has begun, but instead of bill deliberations, we see administrative bureaucrats being treated as target practice, as well as "case-specific interpellations" rather than "bill interpellations." Bashing bureaucrats has long been part of the legislative show. Whether a government official is actually doing a good job doesn't matter; once they step down, favors still need to be asked just the same. However, the bashing must be dramatic and entertaining—newcomers with high fame and high expectations naturally make the best targets. The question is, when did turning bill interpellations into case-specific interpellations become established "practice"?

Although former Legislator Lo Fu-chu is no longer in the Legislative Yuan, with his son taking over as a legislator, he continues to be a central figure in the legislature. In recent days, on the one hand, we have seen prosecutors launch major, aggressive searches and investigations; on the other hand, we have seen Legislator Lo actively interpellating in the Legislative Yuan's Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee regarding judicial cases involving his own father. Today, when judicial independence is championed, we are left to wonder: who can so openly and brazenly attempt to interfere with the judiciary without facing accountability? Who can grandly pressure the Minister of Justice during the investigative stage and openly criticize prosecutors' investigative actions? Even more unclear is how a legislator can, under the protection of parliamentary speech, openly support a judicial case that involves personal private interests. We cannot help but feel perplexed: has the umbrella of protection originally established to safeguard the democratic separation of powers degenerated into an invulnerable shield protecting privileges?

Yet, what is most peculiar is that this situation is not an isolated incident. As soon as our legislative elections conclude, we already know which legislators will occupy the Judiciary Committee. Once an obscure committee, the Judiciary Committee has become a popular one as an increasing number of "legislators involved in legal cases" take office. For themselves and their relatives and friends, these legislators choose the Judiciary Committee as their hiding place right from the start. In the future, we can only wonder how many more individual cases our Ministry of Justice and prosecutors will have to endure pressure over in this very place. Given this phenomenon, it is hardly surprising that ordinary citizens believe those with connections can speak loudly, and that the powerful and influential can indeed "fight for their rights"—rights that are unquestionably nothing more than privileges.

Perhaps Legislator Lo could look at this from another perspective: if the prosecutors are indeed, as he claims, "targeting the Lo family," then does such public pressure help or hurt? Doesn't this simply give ambitious prosecutors a better excuse to crush the Lo family's prestige? If the prosecutors truly violated procedures, why not actively gather evidence with the Lo family's resources before filing accusations? Why openly demonstrate the intention to interfere with the judiciary? As a legislator who treats the law as nothing and fails to observe even the most basic avoidance of judicial interference, what qualifications do they possibly have to legislate for the people?

※ Published in: Taiwan Daily