Blue-White Reform, Where is the Budget? Opinions on the Judicial Yuan's Expenditure Budget for the Second Half of FY 1999 and FY 2000
Last edited: 2026-11-03
Recently, the blueprint and schedule for judicial reform proposed by the Judicial Yuan have won widespread public expectations. However, how to implement them into concrete policies will inevitably be reflected in the annual budget allocation. Whether it is the pyramid structuring of personnel and litigation systems, or administrative items such as nameplates and sound information systems, these all need to be specifically reflected in the budget compilation before they can be realized. Regrettably, judging from this year's budget performance, the budget compilation still follows the old ways and repeats old tunes, lacking the vigorous reformist spirit of the judicial reform blueprint. Therefore, we once again urge the Judicial Yuan not to betray the people's earnest expectations for judicial reform once the judicial budget becomes independent!
1. Personnel System
-
Judicial Assistants: Favoring the Center over the Grassroots
The Judicial Yuan has newly added 779 personnel this time, increasing funding by NT$601,137,000, a growth rate of 7.2%. Given that the growth rate of central government staffing is 2.0%, this is clearly a substantial growth. However, whether its newly added allocation can truly solve the problem of heavy caseloads in the Judicial Yuan remains doubtful. According to the distribution status, 20 district courts added a total of 155 judicial assistants, an average of 7.75 people per court. However, the Supreme Court alone added 51 people, and the High Court added 214 people, an average of 42.8 people per branch court. Doesn't this result make the grassroots courts, which have fewer people and more work, even more distressed, while the relatively relaxed High and Supreme Courts are fully staffed? How can such an allocation make judges willing to stay in district courts for front-line adjudication, and how can society be made to believe that "judges are all equal, regardless of rank"?
Table of Judicial Assistant Staffing Distribution
Unit Staffing Subtotal Supreme Court 51 51 persons Taiwan High Court 103 High Court Subtotal: 214 persons Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Court 41 Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court 28 Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court 36 Taiwan High Court Hualien Branch Court 6 Administrative Court 15 15 persons District Courts 155 District Courts Subtotal: 155 persons -
Senior Judicial Officials' Privilege System: Out with the Old, In with the New
Due to the constitutional protection of judges' "lifelong tenure," the turnover of judicial personnel has been sluggish. Some individuals who no longer possess case-handling capabilities still hold judicial positions, causing stagnation in judicial personnel renewal. Therefore, since 1997, the new "Regulations on Retirement and Nursing Allowances for Judicial Officers" have used generous conditions to encourage judicial officers to retire. However, the past system of preferential treatment for judicial officers has still not been halted, creating the bizarre phenomenon where judges who have stopped handling cases can still draw the compensation of substantive judges. Therefore, it is recommended to completely delete the funding for judicial officer preferential treatment, institutionalize the judicial officer retirement system, rationalize the retirement age of judges, and no longer use the specious theory of "lifelong tenure" to delay the turnover of judicial personnel and place a heavy burden on national finance.
Detailed Budget and Execution Statement for the Number of Beneficiaries and Budget of Preferential Treatment for Judicial Officers under the Judicial Yuan for the Past Three Fiscal Years (Unit: NT$ thousand)
Agency FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 Budgeted Headcount Actual Headcount Budgeted Amount Final Account Amount Budgeted Headcount Actual Headcount Budgeted Amount Headcount Budgeted Amount Supreme Court 10 3 25,692 7,459 10 3 25,692 9 35,437 Administrative Court 5 1 12,846 83 5 - 12,846 2 7,748 Committee on the Discipline of Public Functionaries 7 1 17,834 2,486 7 1 18,135 2 7,946 Taiwan High Court and Branch Courts 20 2 49,432 3,955 20 1 50,999 7 26,897 District Courts 11 2 25,387 3,001 11 2 25,597 5 18,459 Total 53 9 131,191 16,984 53 7 133,269 25 61,050 Budget and Final Account Amounts for Judicial Officers' Retirement and Nursing Allowances
Fiscal Year Budgeted Amount Actual Expenditure Execution Rate 1997 18,960,000 595,780,000 3124.30% 1998 81,738,000 68,038,000 83.24% 1999 118,595,000 38,158,000 32.18% -
Juvenile Courts: The Forgotten Group
Right after the Court Organization Act was amended and passed, the Judicial Yuan hastily added 435 judicial assistants for various courts. However, since the passage of the Juvenile Cases Disposition Act, aside from the preparation of the Kaohsiung Juvenile Court, there has been no recruitment or supplementation of "juvenile investigators" and "juvenile probation officers" in various courts. Even the Kaohsiung Juvenile Court has not established an "investigation and probation division" in accordance with Article 10 of the Juvenile Cases Disposition Act. District courts have only set up psychological testers, psychological counselors, and assistants (see the attached table below), but the placement of critical juvenile investigators and probation officers is completely missing. Does this mean that even today's severity of juvenile problems and the urgency of rebuilding juvenile legal awareness still cannot awaken the Judicial Yuan's attention? (According to Article 5 of the Juvenile Cases Disposition Act, the aforementioned personnel are assigned to the investigation and probation division, which, according to Article 10 of the same Act, should originally be headed by a juvenile investigator or juvenile probation officer.)
Unit Psychological Tester Psychological Counselor Assistant Unspecified High Court and Branch Courts -- -- -- -- Taipei District Court 1 1 2 -- Shihlin District Court 1 1 1 -- Panqiao District Court 1 1 3 -- Taoyuan District Court 1 1 1 -- Hsinchu District Court 1 1 1 -- Miaoli District Court 1 0 1 -- Taichung District Court 1 1 2 -- Changhua District Court 1 1 1 -- Chiayi District Court 1 1 1 -- Yunlin District Court 1 0 1 -- Tainan District Court 1 1 1 -- Kaohsiung District Court 1 1 2 -- Pingtung District Court 1 1 1 -- Keelung District Court 1 0 1 -- Hualien District Court 1 1 1 -- Yilan District Court 0 1 1 -- Taitung District Court 1 0 1 -- Nantou District Court 1 0 1 -- Penghu District Court 0 0 0 -- Kaohsiung Juvenile Court -- -- -- 2 Subtotal 17 13 23 2 Total 55 -
Salaries: Who Should Receive Judicial Allowances?
The purpose of the judicial professional allowance is to provide a salary allowance based on the profession engaged in related judicial adjudication work (Grand Justices, Administrative Court Judges, members of the Committee on the Discipline of Public Functionaries, judges, court clerks). However, the positions held by the President, Vice President, and Secretary-General of the Judicial Yuan are clearly national administrative official positions; they are evidently neither judges nor court clerks and do not meet the conditions for judicial allowances. On the other hand, the presidents and vice presidents of the other four Yuans also hold administrative positions but receive no "professional allowance." There is clearly no reason to single out and favor the Judicial Yuan. Therefore, the President, Vice President, and Secretary-General of the Judicial Yuan should still use their statutory salaries as the basis for collection and should not draw judicial professional allowances while holding judicial administration posts.
Monthly Salary Table for Specially Appointed Personnel of the Judicial Yuan Headquarters
Position Monthly Base Pay Public Expense Allowance Judicial Allowance Total Remarks President 87,120 217,800 88,205 393,125 Additional special expenses of NT$180,000 per month Vice President 87,120 108,900 88,205 284,225 Additional special expenses of NT$100,000 per month Secretary-General 87,120 87,120 88,205 262,445 Additional special expenses of NT$90,000 per month Grand Justice 87,120 87,120 88,205 262,445 No special expenses -
Additional Pay Raises?
Taking the Department of Civil Litigation as an example, "review and collation" fees continuously appear in its business items. Adding items 9, 10, 11, and 12 alone reaches NT$2,092,000, whereas personnel compensation is only NT$24,666,000, which equals an 8.48% pay raise. The same applies to the Administrative Litigation and Disciplinary Department, where the "review and collation" items under items 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 reach NT$2,099,000, accounting for 27.79% of the business expenses of NT$7,552,000. How can the public reconcile themselves to such a salary structure?
2. Hardware Equipment
-
Building Loss-Making Housing
The Judicial Yuan currently has 40 dormitories, but the annual rental income is only NT$1,078,000. In other words, the annual rental income per household is only NT$26,950, or a mere NT$2,245 per month. Yet maintenance costs alone amount to NT$861,000, not including other management costs. However, the Judicial Yuan is planning to budget an additional NT$24,566,000 in the current and upcoming fiscal years to build five official dormitories. With the current rental fees deducted and returned to the treasury for dormitories allocated by the Judicial Yuan amounting to only NT$189,000, is spending money to build dormitories like this both unworthy and unfair?
-
Summary Courts: Why Continue Construction When Results Are Poor?
Due to the poor results of summary courts, leading to the dilemma of having courts without cases, the Judicial Yuan stated last year that it would no longer establish additional summary courts. As for completed summary courts, it also planned to direct them toward administrative courts and juvenile courts to increase utilization rates. But why does this year's budget abruptly feature the newly planned Zhongli Summary Court? Is the Judicial Yuan's policy being thoroughly implemented? Are annual evaluations conducted when compiling the budget, or is it just blindly compiled by following the old system?
-
Vehicles: The Greater the Official, the Larger the Car and the Deeper the Wisdom
During last year's budget compilation by the Judicial Yuan, a controversy over "stars and official cars" arose in the Legislative Yuan. The Judicial Yuan claimed that Grand Justices, whose rank is equivalent to four-star generals, still had to squeeze onto public buses, which was evidently disrespectful and caused strong public dissatisfaction. Unexpectedly, this year's official car budget was compiled just the same, and the unit price per vehicle increased from NT$980,000 to NT$1,400,000, making their status even more astonishing this year.
Regarding the compilation of budgets for official cars, the public has repeatedly emphasized: First, respect for judges and the judiciary is not demonstrated through the type of vehicle; a good car does not diminish the revered status of a good judge regardless of what vehicle they ride in. Furthermore, the purpose of official vehicles is to execute official duties, so vehicles for on-site inspections and police escorts should naturally be budgeted. If a head of an agency's car is only used for commuting to and from work, expenses should be retrenched and service life extended, and there is certainly no need to use imported luxury-grade cars for getting around!
Agency Category Vehicle Type Purpose and Quantity Unit Price Budgeted Amount Judicial Yuan Grand Justices' Official Cars Replacement of 4 vehicles 1,400,000 5,600,000 Official Sedans Replacement of 5 vehicles 650,000 3,250,000 Supreme Court Head's Official Car Replacement of 1 vehicle 1,400,000 1,400,000 Committee on the Discipline of Public Functionaries Head's Official Car Replacement of 1 vehicle 1,400,000 1,400,000 High Administrative Courts Heads' Official Cars Addition of 3 vehicles 1,000,000 3,000,000 Administrative Court Official Sedans Addition of 3 vehicles 650,000 1,950,000 Taiwan High Court and Branch Courts Head's Official Car Replacement of 1 vehicle 1,000,000 1,000,000 District Courts (20 locations) Heads' Official Cars Replacement of 4 vehicles, Addition of 1 vehicle 800,000 4,000,000 Official Sedans Replacement of 1 vehicle, Addition of 2 vehicles 650,000 1,950,000 Total 8,950,000 Comparison of Budgeted Prices for Official Cars of Heads at Various Levels
Unit Unit Price Official cars for heads of central ministries and commissions 980,000 Official cars for deputy heads of central ministries and commissions 755,000 Official cars subordinate to ministry and commission heads 645,000 Official sedans 603,000 -
Repeated Budget Compilation for Book Purchases Across Units
The Secretariat of the Grand Justices budgeted NT$1,469 thousand, the Counselors' Office budgeted NT$873 thousand, the Personnel Department and others budgeted NT$1,449 thousand, the Administrative and Disciplinary Department budgeted NT$58 thousand, and the Department of Judicial Administration budgeted NT$228 thousand. Furthermore, books are purchased through various methods such as special research projects and outsourced research. With every unit in the Judicial Yuan purchasing books independently, isn't there a suspicion of waste? Could this be planned as a centralized library so that the same funding could purchase even more diverse books?
3. Policy Research Lasting Until the End of Time?
The purpose of policy research by government agencies is to propose new policies to improve the inadequacies of old ones. However, if things are always stuck in the "research" stage, one cannot help but wonder whether this is a government agency or an academic institution. In particular, the funding for FY 2000 has markedly increased compared to before; is there truly such a demand? Taking the seminar for the revision of the Civil Servants Discipline Act held at the five-star Regent Taipei hotel as an example, such "research funding" clearly has the suspicion of being excessive and undisciplined.
Detailed Table of Various Legal Research Projects and Budgets Compiled by the Judicial Yuan in Recent Years (Unit: NT$ thousand)
| Law Name | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | Single Research Total | Remarks/Explanation |
| Code of Civil Procedure | 1,909 | 1,862 | 1,962 | 2,193 | 3,613 | 11,539 | Budgeted since FY 1994 |
| Bankruptcy Act | 1,993 | 1,946 | 2,043 | 2,084 | 3,613 | 11,679 | Budgeted since FY 1994 |
| Non-Contentious Legal Officers Act | 1,846 | 1,799 | 1,782 | 1,526 | -- | 6,953 | Completed |
| Non-Contentious Matters Act | 1,905 | 1,885 | 1,876 | 1,906 | 3,216 | 10,788 | Budgeted since FY 1994 |
| Notary Act | 1,692 | 1,645 | -- | -- | -- | 3,337 | Completed |
| Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements | -- | -- | -- | -- | 5,230 | 5,230 | -- |
| Code of Criminal Procedure | -- | 424 | 548 | 677 | 1,560 | 3,209 | -- |
| Trial Provisions for Lay Participation | 1,106 | 1,032 | 998 | 644 | -- | 3,780 | Budgeted since FY 1994 |
| Civil Servants Discipline System | -- | -- | 1,456 | 2,082 | 2,149 | 5,687 | -- |
| Total Annual Research Funding | 10,451 | 10,593 | 10,665 | 11,112 | 19,381 | -- | -- |
-
Integration of Legal Professionals' Examination and Training
Regarding the funding for studying systems related to the "integration of legal professionals' examination and training," "research" has been ongoing and reports completed since the era of former President Lin Yang-kang (林洋港), suggesting that judicial officers implement the integration of examination and training. During the era of former President Shih Chi-yang (施啟陽), after a year of discussion, specific recommendations were also drawn up. However, this year's budget once again features NT$2,910,000 to commission academic institutions to research systems related to the integration of legal professionals' examination and training. How many times must research be repeated before "research" can be turned into "action"?
-
Administrative Litigation Act
Taking the Administrative Litigation Act as an example, under the joint promotion of civilian judicial groups, the Legislative Yuan passed it in three readings during the previous session, ushering our nation's administrative litigation system into a new era. Yet in this year's budget items of the Judicial Yuan, we see: "Compilation and collation fees of NT$128,000 and printing fees of NT$151,000 for compiling and printing the comparison table of old and new provisions and the revision explanation booklet for the draft amendments to the Administrative Litigation Act, totaling NT$279,000." May I ask if communication between the Judicial Yuan and the Legislative Yuan is really that difficult? Or is the Judicial Yuan truly so out of touch with reality that it is completely unaware that a new litigation system has already been born?
4. Sightseeing Trips Go On and On: Excessive Funding for Overseas Inspections
The purpose of inspections is to absorb the experiences of other countries to feed back into improving our domestic related systems. However, if groups go abroad for inspections year after year, and the inspection locations are always the same countries, what benefit does such an inspection bring to the country? How can one not suspect that it is merely using the name of inspection to carry out political patronage?
| Fiscal Year | Unit | Funding | Inspection Locations |
| 1995 | Grand Justices | 699,000 | United States, Costa Rica, Brazil |
| 1996 | Grand Justices | 699,000 | United States, Costa Rica, Brazil |
| 1997 | Grand Justices | 699,000 | United States, Costa Rica, Brazil |
| 1998 | Grand Justices | 1,658,000 | Europe, Americas |
| 1999 | Grand Justices | 2,711,000 | Europe, Americas |
| 2000 (Current) | Grand Justices | 2,821,000 | Europe, Americas |
| 1999 | Supreme Court | 3,259,000 | Japan |
| 2000 (Current) | Supreme Court | 2,846,000 | Japan |
| 1999 | High Court | 12,467,000 | North America, Europe, Asia |
| 2000 (Current) | High Court | 11,595,000 | Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand |
As for the budget items compiled in FY 2000, inspections, visits, and advanced studies by the Judicial Yuan total 1,209 person-days. Calculated at 305 people, each person goes abroad for about 4 days on average. Is such an arrangement reasonable? Is it necessary? Furthermore, this does not yet include the "subsidy" item under which the Public Notaries Association is subsidized to go abroad for inspections (in fact, the Notary Act has already been amended and passed, and there is currently no need to go abroad for inspections at all).
Aside from the Grand Justices and the Supreme Court evidently repeating inspections of the same countries, taking the High Court's inspection plan as an example, when dispatching personnel abroad to inspect judicial administration, it sent personnel to inspect Eastern European regions such as the "Russian Federation and Ukraine" and Southeast Asian regions such as "Singapore and Malaysia." The "judicial administration" and "adjudication work" in these regions either differ greatly from our nation's system or may be more backward than ours; are they truly worth inspecting? Moreover, the High Court has over a hundred judges, yet the number of "inspection" trips abroad reaches 81 person-trips and 839 person-days, averaging seven days abroad per judge. Is this reasonable?
In fact, except for the Supreme Court, the High Court headquarters, and the Committee on the Discipline of Public Functionaries, all other courts have not budgeted for overseas travel. If going abroad is so important, why have the various branch courts of the High Court not budgeted for it? In fact, district court judges, perhaps because they are younger and have a stronger ability to absorb new knowledge, should instead be dispatched abroad for inspections. Regarding this issue, we hope the Judicial Yuan will conduct a comprehensive review. On the one hand, eliminate waste and avoid unnecessary overseas trips to reduce the waste of taxpayers' blood and sweat money. On the other hand, if there is truly a need, upon returning from inspections, reports should be diligently written and submitted to research, evaluation, and考核 (考核/evaluation) units for tracking and assessment, and overseas opportunities should also strive to be equal, without favoring the Grand Justices, the Supreme Court, and the High Court.
5. Subsidizing Associations: Who Was Subsidized?
Subsidizing the legal service centers of various universities with NT$2,910 thousand is unprecedented and a fine initiative, but what is the purpose? Are there concrete performance evaluations after the subsidy? Are there controls, assessments, and tracking of their usage? Furthermore, what are the standards and purposes of subsidies for civil organizations? Are there similarly any controls, assessments, and tracking of usage performance? As for the high subsidies given to the Judges Association, the Women Judges Association, and the Court Clerks Association, how can these associations have independent "association" functions? Instead, they are likely to be sneered at as "private in name but official in nature." What are the standards and purposes for subsidizing private groups? Why not set a total amount and have various groups apply for it? Otherwise, why subsidize the Chinese Association for Human Rights but not the Taiwan Association for Human Rights? Why subsidize the Chinese Constitutional Law Society but not the Taiwan Law Society?
| Subsidized Unit | Subsidy Funding |
| Judges Association | 18,188,000 |
| Women Judges Association | 2,574,000 |
| Court Clerks Association | 873,000 |
| Chinese Association for Human Rights | 728,000 |
| East Asian Administrative Law Society | 5,000,000 |
| Public Notaries Association | 1,455,000 |
| Chinese Constitutional Law Society | 582,000 |
6. Overlapping Control and Evaluation Functions: Why Not Implement Judge Evaluation?
Improving the quality of judgments is an important goal of judicial reform. Last year, this Foundation strongly criticized that the function of "correction of judgment documents" is completely nonexistent and should be abolished. Unexpectedly, it continues to be budgeted this year: not only does the Department of Civil Litigation budget NT$524,000 for "reviewing various civil judgment documents" and the Department of Criminal Litigation budget NT$524,000 for "reviewing various criminal judgment documents," but they also respectively budget NT$1,356,000 and NT$590,000 for compiling and printing the "Compendium of Review Gist for Final Civil Judgments" and the "Gist of Reviews for Final Criminal Judgments." Furthermore, the Department of Judicial Administration budgeted NT$1,471,000 for the intended establishment of a "post-review panel for judgment documents." In our Foundation's view, rather than spending a total of NT$4,465,000 on the aforementioned expenses, it would be far better to allocate it as funding to implement comprehensive judge evaluation, which would be far more effective than supervising and assessing judges. Otherwise, taking the notorious quality of criminal judgments as an example, fifteen volumes of "Review Gists" have already been published, yet the quality of criminal judgments still varies wildly. What results can be spoken of?
Content of Budget Riders for FY 2000
- For cases where the facts are clear and a judgment can be rendered directly, the overturning and remanding of cases to the High Court for retrial should be avoided to prevent unnecessary appeal cases.
- Judicial assistants should be prioritized for assignment to judges of the first instance (court of fact).
- The Constitutional Court of the Council of Grand Justices should live-stream and broadcast on video walls on-site throughout the entire process so that citizens nationwide can understand and enhance the legal education of the people.
- The Judicial Yuan should formulate and submit a specific schedule within six months to replace the current method of record-keeping with electronic or mechanical means, faithfully recording court proceedings throughout the entire process. Court proceedings should be recorded throughout by audio recording and fully preserved until the judgment becomes final. Hearing records should also be completely and fully recorded. In addition to current improvement plans, consideration should be given to test-employing full-time stenographers trained in legal terminology in selected courts to handle record creation.
- The Judicial Yuan should make the established electronic database retrieval system for the full text of all judgments across all courts nationwide publicly available, and complete it within at least three months.
- The Judicial Yuan should formulate a specific schedule to comprehensively review and improve the working environment of judges in order to effectively enhance the work efficiency and quality of judges.
- The Judicial Yuan should strengthen the quality of judges handling cases scientifically and broaden the budget for appraisal fees at all levels of court.
- The Judicial Yuan should formulate specific measures within six months to comprehensively inspect the supply and demand usage status of current official dormitories for judges and single judicial personnel, make proper plans for allocation, gradually reduce the vacancy rate, and study the possibility of courts renting housing as official dormitories to replace self-construction. Unless necessary and supported by sound planning, no further budgets shall be compiled to construct official dormitories.
- The Judicial Yuan should formulate a specific schedule for the amended Juvenile Cases Disposition Act, add abundant personnel funding, and enhance the quality of juvenile case handling.
- The Judicial Yuan should promptly establish juvenile courts in Taipei, Taichung, and Hualien. For the office buildings during the preparation period, priority should be given to reallocating the office buildings of summary courts with poor performance.
- The functions of the Committee on the Discipline of Public Functionaries of the Judicial Yuan belong to judicial adjudication work. According to Grand Justices' Interpretation No. 396 of February 2, 1996, it should be reorganized into a court system to protect the right of litigation of the broad masses of public functionaries and citizens. The Judicial Yuan should accelerate the completion of reorganization without further delay.
- Courts at all levels shall place the nameplates of judges on the trial bench.
- The judge evaluation system should be legalized as soon as possible and shift to proactive evaluation.
- The elimination of incompetent judges should be legalized.
- Sexual assault crime cases should be tried in specialized court divisions, and judges responsible for trial should be provided with in-service training to strengthen knowledge in psychological counseling and guidance.
- The trial procedure of the Supreme Court should be promptly amended into oral argument procedures.
- The Judicial Yuan should establish a Judges Research Institute responsible for the training and advanced study of judges. The original Ministry of Justice Judges Training Institute should be converted into a Prosecutors Research Institute or Legal Personnel Research Institute.
- The case allocation volume for division presidents in courts at all levels should be reasonably adjusted to avoid unequal workloads.
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.