We Look Forward to a Judicial Reform Decision-Making Conference That Reflects the Public Voice

Since our Foundation, together with the Taipei Bar Association, Taiwan Law Association, Judges Association of the Republic of China, and National Federation of Taiwan Bar Association, met with President Lee Teng-hui in May and obtained his approval to convene a National Judicial Reform Conference, we have urged the Judicial Yuan to swiftly initiate planning given the urgency of judicial reform. However, over the past two months, preparations for the National Judicial Reform Conference have remained all talk and no action. Although the Judicial Yuan has convened several meetings to listen to opinions from various sectors, these opinions diverge widely. Furthermore, these efforts have coincided with events such as the constitutional entrenchment of judicial budget independence and adjustments to court clerks' compensation. Coupled with cabinet personnel changes following constitutional amendments, it is difficult to remain optimistic about the future of the National Judicial Reform Conference.

Nevertheless, since the National Judicial Reform Conference was secured and called for by our Foundation and the other four groups, we believe it is necessary to state our position for the guidance of all parties. First, the National Judicial Reform Conference should be positioned as a "decision-making conference." Why is this necessary? Because official judicial reform conferences led by the Judicial Yuan have already discussed almost every issue related to judicial reform. The reason they have failed to yield results is primarily because many issues were left for further study. Therefore, if the upcoming National Judicial Reform Conference is merely going to invite various experts to freely express their opinions, it would be better not to hold it at all! It is true that institutional reform must be approached with caution, but prolonged "discussion without decision" is the greatest failing of judicial reform! Therefore, unless there are sufficient reasons explaining why a decision cannot be reached, this conference should, in accordance with its "decision-making function" to "solve problems," determine reform practices as much as possible. Of course, if full implementation is momentarily unfeasible, our Foundation would support adopting "pilot programs" or a "timetable" approach.

Second, differing from past official judicial reform conferences, this conference should be dominated by civil society participation. Indeed, people cannot help but question why a conference convened by the authorities should be dominated by civil society participation. Our Foundation must painfully point out that it is precisely because past official-centered judicial reform performance has been less than ideal that we must now change course. Moreover, the justice system is inherently meant to serve all citizens. The fact that the quality of adjudication remains less than ideal and public satisfaction with judicial credibility cannot be achieved are realities that persist despite repeated efforts by judicial authorities. Consequently, if the reform mechanism continues to be entrusted to the official authorities who ought to be reformed, the future of this judicial reform conference can be known without asking.

Furthermore, President Lee often says, "The desires of the people are always in my heart." Have the judicial authorities truly "empathized" with the public's perception of the judiciary today? Rude courtroom culture and uneven quality of adjudication—these items of evidence gathered from courtroom observation were not formed overnight. If they are merely handed over to the authorities for "study and improvement," what kind of expectations can the public possibly hold? Based on the above considerations, our Foundation clearly advocates that for this National Judicial Reform Conference, regardless of the composition of the preparatory meetings or the formal meeting, civil society representatives should make up more than half of the participants.

Finally, since it is positioned as a "decision-making conference," and because judicial reform involves changes to personnel and examination systems as well as budget expansion—none of which can be independently decided by the Judicial Yuan—this conference should include representatives from various Yuans, such as the Executive Yuan (for coordination of the prosecution system), the Legislative Yuan (for budgetary support), and the Examination Yuan (for the examination and appointment of judicial personnel). Naturally, it should not be led solely by the Judicial Yuan. At the same time, since it is a decision-making conference, representatives from each Yuan should also possess decision-making authority; thus, the Legislative Yuan contingent must naturally include representatives from the three major parties, and representatives from Yuans such as the Examination Yuan should ideally be the President and Vice President themselves in order to participate in decision-making. Meanwhile, to fulfill the conference's function of coordinating the various Yuans, and with reference to the provisions of Article 44 of the Constitution, President Lee should personally serve as the chairperson, and when necessary, Vice President Lien may preside, with the aim of achieving the function of reconciling differing opinions to make decisions.

Our Foundation believes that, looking back, since the enactment of the Constitution, judicial reform has never received such high regard as it does today; as the saying goes, the public sentiment is a resource that can be harnessed. Looking to the future, to enhance national competitiveness, judicial reform is also an indispensable link. Seizing this opportune moment, our Foundation ardently hopes that this National Judicial Reform Conference will make wise decisions on what should be promoted and what should be reformed, driven by thinking that fully reflects the public will. If so, it will be the great fortune of all citizens nationwide, and the great fortune of the nation's future!