285 Minutes for an Eight-Year Grand Justice Term?! Statement by the Civil Alliance for the Monitoring of Grand Justices

The Legislative Yuan held its personnel review for Grand Justices today (June 11), and the results are disappointing. Nominees dodged controversial issues and gave empty answers. If this is the backbone of our Grand Justices, there is little room for optimism regarding Taiwan's constitutional future.

When asked by Legislator Wu Yu-jen whether certain regulations were unconstitutional, Lin Chun-i replied, "Based on judicial ethics, it is inconvenient for me to answer." Does he not know that upon being nominated as a Grand Justice, one must take a stance on whether something is unconstitutional? Wu Ch'en-huan's response was even more outrageous, stating, "I am currently the Political Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Justice, so it is inconvenient for me to answer this question..." If he is so adamant about holding a "position," he might as well just remain a deputy minister. Does he even know why he is standing in the parliament?

Regarding the "constitutional petition"—which is most beneficial to the people—Lin Chun-i, Wu Ch'en-huan, and Tsai Ming-cheng all repeatedly answered, "Germany believes that constitutional petitions can protect the rights and interests of the people, but our country has different customs and mores, so this requires further discussion..." We must ask: if Grand Justices cannot prioritize the protection of human rights, what use are they?

Regarding the current social controversies over the "abolition or retention of the death penalty" and "same-sex marriage," all four nominees bluntly replied that they were "unfeasible" without providing any pros and cons from a constitutional perspective. Clearly, discussions on the right to life and the right to equality protected by the Constitution are completely outside the scope of their thinking. They merely follow "public opinion," trimming their sails with the wind and swaying indefinitely. This is precisely the attitude that a Grand Justice with backbone should least possess. Grand Justices must never be "weathercocks."

Looking at the answers provided by the nominees, they appear entirely unprepared to become Grand Justices. Aside from being hollow, they are also overwhelmingly subservient to the positions of the questioning legislators. If they only know how to sway, they are not fit to be Grand Justices! As guardians of the nation's constitutional order, Grand Justices can protect the rights of the people through constitutional interpretation. Conversely, lacking constitutional human rights awareness, they will become assassins of human rights.

Finally, regarding today's Grand Justice review proceedings in the Legislative Yuan, the legislators evidently showed little concern. Not only was the morning session delayed by half an hour due to a lack of quorum, but the number of legislators participating throughout the entire process was also meager. Out of 113 legislators nationwide, only 19 participated in the questioning, with each having a mere 15 minutes to question the four nominees. Facing nominees with swaying stances and evasive answers, there was simply not enough information or time to pursue further inquiry, leaving everyone helpless. Trading 285 minutes for an eight-year Grand Justice term and a salary of over NT$30 million—no job has a higher cost-performance ratio than this.

The Alliance once again calls for this: only by delaying the review can we thoroughly scrutinize it! The Legislative Yuan should reschedule the review timeline and demand that the nominees prepare relevant review materials. Only then can we truly achieve a prudent and rigorous review process and live up to the trust of the people!

Alliance Members

Taiwan Law Society
Hsinshe Society
Taiwan Democracy Watch
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Alliance for Constitutional Reform
Taiwan Association for Innocence
 Citizen Congress Watch
Judicial Reform Foundation

Press Contact

Kao Jung-chih, Executive Director, JRF, 02-2523-1178