Independent of Status

Lo Fu-chu's case has once again escalated tensions between the courts and prosecutors, while Wu Tse-yuan's departure and failure to return has once again shocked the public with judicial decision-making. These two high-profile cases have both raised questions about the judiciary.

In Lo Fu-chu's case, ironically, society was actually quite pleased to see prosecutors take action against someone of "high status and influence." Especially since this legislator, widely known for his gangland background, had long been viewed with disapproval. Yet when prosecutors finally began investigating him, major procedural controversies arose, giving this powerful legislator—influential in both the underworld and mainstream society—an opportunity to strike back. As a result, not only did the prosecutors bog themselves down in a counter-lawsuit, but the focus shifted entirely to the tensions sparked by the court questioning the legality of the emergency detention. The prosecutors decided to file an appeal, making the standoff between the courts and prosecutors seem even more volatile than the confrontation between the prosecutors and Lo Fu-chu. Meanwhile, anxious ordinary citizens were left wondering, on the one hand, whether the prosecutors' grounds for requesting detention still existed; if there were truly concerns about evidence destruction and collusion, wouldn't it all be too late now? On the other hand, they couldn't help but be confused: when deciding to prosecute someone, why resort to controversial methods? Why not handle it in a way that leaves the defendant with no room for complaint? What kind of logic turns a matter that should have been cause for celebration into something that leaves everyone utterly bewildered?

Wu Tse-yuan's case, meanwhile, dates back to when he was released on bail for medical treatment. A defendant who initially required detention seemingly lost all grounds for it upon being granted medical bail, never needing to return behind bars. The Legislative Yuan's "return clause," dubbed the "Wu Tse-yuan Provision," was clearly never applied to him. The Legislative Yuan magically issued an official document for an inspection delegation that did not even exist to the court, and the court, out of respect for the legislature, processed it accordingly. Only afterward did everyone realize that his term had already expired, stripping away his legislative umbrella. Faced with a life sentence in the first instance and thirteen years in the second, whether he will return remains up in the air.

In one case, the judiciary tripped over its own feet, opening the floodgates for public speculation about collusion between the judiciary and politics. In the other, the judiciary stood by and watched as a defendant on the verge of conviction walked right out of the judiciary's reach, rendering previous efforts all for naught. Both cases lead people to question whether the judiciary truly applies different lines of reasoning and different procedures when facing different individuals. At the very least, neither protagonist in these two cases experienced anything resembling the treatment ordinary people like us would receive.

Faced with these controversies, many legal professionals must find themselves at their wits' end; even those who believe Taiwan's judiciary is already independent would not know how to defend it. Only when the judiciary applies the exact same procedures and standards to every single person, regardless of who they are, can we truly and proudly declare that Taiwan's judiciary has finally broken free not only from politics, but also from subjectivity and prejudice!

※ Originally published in: Taiwan Daily