Top-Heavy Budgets Neglect Judicial Reform Projects: A Comprehensive Review of the Judicial Yuan's Outlay Budget for the Central Government General Budget in Fiscal Year 1999

Responses to Various Administrative Policies of the Judicial Yuan

I. Comprehensive Review of "The Judicial Yuan's Operational Performance in Fiscal Year 1997"

1. Bills Sent to the Legislative Yuan for Deliberation Omit the Administrative Litigation Act and the Appeal Act (Item 2)

   The budget compiles items related to the Administrative Court or administrative litigation, yet the legal bills submitted to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation omit the most important legal basis—the promotion of amendments to the Administrative Litigation Act and the Appeal Act. If the passage of these two acts is not actively promoted, won't the related budget items be left without a foundation, and won't the realization of the administrative relief system be placed beyond reach?

2. Review of Final Civil and Criminal Judgments (Item 3)

   Judgments found inappropriate after review can no longer be remedied, and even if corrections are made, they serve no practical benefit. Relevant measures for re-education, disciplinary action, and even the elimination of unsuited personnel should be actively established.

II. Comprehensive Review of "The Judicial Yuan's Administrative Plan for Fiscal Year 1999"

1. Strengthen the Fact-Finding Function of First- and Second-Instance Courts, Uphold the Principle of the Third-Instance Court as a Court of Law, Improve Civil and Criminal Trial Performance, and Promote an Efficient Judiciary (Item 3)

   1. However, regarding the compilation of judicial assistants, it completely runs counter to this spirit. Among the 280 judicial assistants budgeted, 51 are allocated to the Supreme Court; 15 assistant judges to the Administrative Court; 103 to the High Court; 41 to the Taichung Branch of the High Court; 28 to the Tainan Branch of the High Court; 36 to the Kaohsiung Branch of the High Court; and 6 to the Hualien Branch of the High Court. District courts have zero allocations. How can fact-finding functions be strengthened when front-line district courts, which serve as fact-finders, are not allocated any?
   2. To uphold the court of law principle and strengthen fact-finding, the key lies in adjusting the existing personnel structure and litigation system, rather than merely supplementing new personnel. Currently, personnel counts are increased only for judicial assistants, without comprehensive coordination for reforming overall staffing, ranks, and personnel training. Seeking to strengthen fact-finding through this approach is akin to scaling a tree to catch fish.

2. Appropriately Adjudicate Labor Disputes and Promote Labor Harmony (Item 11)
   Urge Appropriate Adjudication of Intellectual Property Rights Cases to Protect the Rights and Interests of Intellectual Property Rights Holders (Item 12)

   1. The planning directions of these two facilities are correct, and we view them with optimism.
   2. However, since no relevant budgets are compiled, the establishment of specialized courts demanded by civil society has not been implemented, nor have appropriate and sufficient relief measures been drawn up for vulnerable groups in labor dispute cases. We truly do not know how execution is possible.
   3. Regarding intellectual property rights cases, without supporting measures such as strengthening judges' professional capabilities and fully subsidizing appraisal fees, so-called "appropriate adjudication" is nothing more than empty talk.

3. Properly Handle Juvenile Cases and Handle Juvenile Guidance Operations in Accordance with the Newly Amended Juvenile Cases Handling Act (Item 14)

   Examining the relevant budget compilation, apart from hardware such as buildings, it only compiles items such as urine testing personnel, testing fees, and equipment fees. It fails to establish specialized personnel for juvenile probation officers and juvenile investigators in accordance with the newly amended Juvenile Cases Handling Act. We truly do not know how the Judicial Yuan can "properly handle juvenile cases" without such professional judicial personnel. Compared to judicial assistants who are massively compiled without a legal basis, isn't this intentional negligence, and how can cases be properly handled?

4. Urge Appropriate Adjudication of Hoodlum Reformatory Education Cases, Social Order Maintenance Act Violation Cases, Traffic Cases, and Organized Crime Prevention Cases (Item 15)

   There are no budget items on how to execute this administrative plan, nor is there any explanation of whether there were deficiencies in handling the aforementioned related cases last year. The practice in hoodlum cases of directly transferring suspects to Green Island has sparked immense social controversy, and the infringement upon human rights especially warrants attention; yet no explanations are provided, nor are concrete improvement plans proposed.

5. Rationally Strive for Judicial Personnel Staffing to Alleviate Judges' Workloads (Item 21)

   1. While increasing judge staffing is indeed one way to alleviate judges' workloads, without overall planning and timelines for reducing litigation sources, improving litigation systems, adjusting personnel structures, and redistributing judicial human resources, continuously increasing judge staffing will ultimately be of no avail. This judicial budget lacks macroeconomic design, merely listing numbers of added judges without explaining the data on expected workload reductions; this is disappointing.
   2. The Judges Act—which concerns the training and selection of judges and judicial assistants—has not been listed as a priority bill. Instead, the staffing of "legal officers" is directly increased to expand personnel, which may lead to overlapping and redundant personnel allocations and functions in the future.
   3. Alleviating judges' workloads is a key focus of judicial reform, but the Judicial Yuan should promptly break away from the mindset of "satisfying hunger with painted cakes" and courageously propose "how-to" methods. First and foremost, it should start with improvements to the litigation system rather than slowly increasing staffing while failing to see when the problem can be solved. At the very least, the Judicial Yuan should explain when, at the current speed and method of staff increases, judges' workloads can be effectively alleviated, when judges' caseloads can reach reasonable levels, and when the quality of judgments can rise accordingly. Furthermore, reasonable staffing is only one aspect of workload relief. Relying solely on this, even with increased budget compilations, may not necessarily bring in fresh blood (due to consideration of examination candidate numbers and attrition of existing personnel), and thus it will ultimately be of no avail. Moreover, judicial assistants are compiled as contract personnel, which evidently has flaws in its legal basis. Qualifications, required quantities, and sources should be comprehensively considered under the Judges Act, and it is inappropriate to use contractual employment to circumvent existing personnel examination methods.

6. Rectify Judicial Discipline, Curb Corruption, and Strictly Investigate Cases Damaging Judicial Reputation to Safeguard Good Discipline and Judicial Dignity (Item 23)

   From the budget compilation, it is also impossible to see how the Judicial Yuan intends to execute this administrative plan. There is neither the appearance of specialized personnel and courts dedicated to execution nor the compilation of special project expenditures. Therefore, it leaves people guessing: under conditions of having neither personnel nor money, how on earth can the Judicial Yuan effectively execute judicial anti-corruption?

III. Comprehensive Review of the Judicial Yuan's "Compilation of FY 1999 Budget in Coordination with Major Judicial Administrative Plans"

1. To Effectively Relieve Judges' Workloads, Increase Judge Staffing by 137, Add 100 Judicial Legal Officers and 280 Judicial Assistants, and Matchingly Increase Staffing for Clerks, Record Clerks, etc., by 421, Along with Related Staffing Adjustments Totaling NT$1,075,935,000 (Item 1)

   1. The Legal Officers Act has not yet passed its third reading, yet the judiciary has pre-emptively compiled a budget adopting contractual employment. The Judges Act has not yet passed, nor has it even been submitted for review; yet the budget is compiled while the ranks and appointment qualifications of judicial assistants lack any relevant legal basis.
   2. The so-called "matching" increase of over 400 court clerks and record clerks lacks any details on how it is "matched". In fact, if computerization of transcripts can be implemented in the future, a large number of professional computer recorders or stenographers should be added, and the staffing of clerks should be correspondingly reduced.

2. Supplement Verification Vehicles, Increase Investigation Travel Expenses and Appraisal Fees, Representing an Increase of NT$146,498,000 Over the Previous Year (Item 4)

   Shortages in verification vehicles and appraisal fees are important issues that ought to be heavily budgeted, but they should be budgeted under trial operations rather than arbitrarily expanded. Taking the Supreme Court as an example, it actually budgeted for 21 official sedans. According to common sense, the Supreme Court, as a court of law, does not need to use such a large number of verification vehicles. Therefore, this budget should be allocated to district courts or high courts rather than the Supreme Court.

3. Add or Replace Office Equipment Representing an Increase of NT$167,554,000 Over the Previous Year, Among Which Eight Emerging Projects Total NT$700,056,000 (Item 5)

   Emerging projects should comprehensively consider whether additions and expansions are rational. For example, the preparation of summary courts involves whether the existing forty-plus summary courts are producing effects; when there is no need to continue establishing new summary courts, careful consideration should indeed be given.

4. In Accordance with the Provisions of the "Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act", Operations for Urine Testing Involve Adding 40 Contract Testing Personnel and Related Funds of NT$122,224,000 (Item 9)

   Regarding the juvenile probation officers and juvenile investigators required by the newly amended Juvenile Cases Handling Act last year, no specialized personnel staffing is seen—only the strengthening of urine screening procedures? How on earth does the Judicial Yuan intend to implement the proper handling of juvenile cases?

IV. Comments and Explanations Regarding the Judicial Yuan's "Expected Administrative Performance for FY 1999"

1. Actively Promote Various Judicial Reform Works and Establish a Judiciary for All the People (Item 2)

   Ever since the Judicial Yuan promised to convene a national judicial reform conference last year, there has been no response. Following the large-scale march for justice organized by civil society last year, the judicial reform blueprint and judicial reform schedule demanded of the Judicial Yuan have also failed to materialize. We do not know how a "judiciary for all the people" is to be realized.

2. Improve Judgment Quality and Enhance Public Trust in the Judiciary (Item 3)

   The primary task lies in resolving the problem of judges being overburdened. When exactly will the Judicial Yuan complete a plan for reasonable caseloads? Can it propose a quantified schedule?

3. Stabilize Colleagues' Work Morale and Reduce Talent Attrition (Item 5)

   The way to reduce the turnover of judges is to improve the trial environment. Aside from judges' workloads repeatedly mentioned earlier, the Judicial Yuan has long delayed providing a comprehensive improvement schedule, merely proposing the additional construction of official dormitories and health checkups in the hope of "stabilizing" judicial personnel's work morale, which is bound to prove ineffective. It would be better to promptly and actively improve the litigation system and truly implement a "pyramiding" litigation structure, effectively alleviating the caseload burden on first-instance judges. This is the true and correct path to preventing talent attrition.