Extended Review is Prerequisite for Rigorous Review - Statement by the Alliance for Monitoring Grand Justice Nominations

Yesterday (June 10) at the Legislative Yuan's public hearing on the personnel review of Grand Justices, a legislator mentioned that the Office of the President refused to provide information on the Grand Justice nominees under the pretext of personal data protection. As Grand Justices hold critical national positions, how can either the nominees or the Office of the President refuse to provide review materials to the Legislative Yuan for examination under the baseless excuse of "personal data protection"?

Although various party caucuses have issued statements promising to conduct a "rigorous review" of the Grand Justice nominees, we must question: how can there be a rigorous review without concrete information? Therefore, the Alliance for Monitoring Grand Justice Nominations hereby issues this stern statement, explicitly demanding that the Legislative Yuan boycott the process in order to extend this week's excessively brief review period. Only through an "extended review" can we achieve a "rigorous review"!

The two major parties may respond by claiming that "past review procedures have always been like this," thereby rejecting the Alliance's call to extend the review process. However, how much longer shall past mistakes be perpetuated? The public has long grown impatient; perfunctory monitoring is not monitoring at all, and legislators who receive taxpayers' money should not betray the public's expectations in this manner.

Finally, the Alliance once again calls on the Legislative Yuan to immediately:

1. Reschedule the review timeline, issue questionnaires to the nominees, and provide them with at least two weeks to submit written replies as reference materials for the review.
2. Incorporate opinions from civil society, experts, and scholars into the Grand Justice review, and grant civil society organizations and experts sufficient preparation time to conduct individual evaluations of each nominee for the reference of congressional review.
3. Hold at least three days of public hearings and two days of review sessions for each individual nominee, and publish the review report one month prior to exercising the consent power, thereby fulfilling the monitoring mechanism through a prudent and rigorous process.

Alliance Members

Taiwan Law Association
Taiwan Association of University Professors (Chengshe)
Taiwan Forever
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Alliance for Constitutional Reform
Taiwan Association for Innocence
Citizen Congress Watch
Judicial Reform Foundation

Media Contacts

Kao Jung-chih, Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation 02-2523-1178