Supervising Grand Justice Nominations and Review Starts with the Nomination Advisory Committee

At the end of May, President Tsai Ing-wen approved the Guidelines for the Establishment of the Nomination Advisory Committee for Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan for 2016, and appointed six members to the committee: Vice President Ch'en Chien-jen, former Presidents of the Judicial Yuan Weng Yo-sheng and Lai Ying-chih, former Grand Justices Liu Tieh-cheng and Hsu Pi-hu, and Tsar & Tsai Law Firm Special Consultant Fan K'uang-ch'un.

Grand justices are the supreme symbol of judicial power and hold a revered status; thus, their nomination and review must be handled properly and rigorously. Since its establishment in 2003, the Alliance for Monitoring Grand Justice Candidates has conducted monitoring and evaluations for successive grand justice nominations, producing evaluation reports for public scrutiny. In recent years, the nomination and review process for grand justices has failed to meet social expectations. We hope that the new president and the new parliament will bring a refreshing change to the nomination and review of this term's grand justices, and we hereby issue the following statement:

1. Advisory Committee Members Are All Former Bureaucrats; The New Government's Opening Move Is Disappointing
   In recent years, the "Nomination Advisory Committee for Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan" established by the Office of the President has consistently appointed the vice president as convener, along with "former" officials such as former presidents of the Judicial Yuan and former grand justices as committee members. This has long been criticized for lacking innovation and diversity. Furthermore, the candidate recommendation lists and review criteria of the Advisory Committee are neither public nor transparent, violating the original intent of establishing the Advisory Committee to demonstrate the president's openness to recommendations and transparent selection. President Tsai Ing-wen, having styled herself as a president who "listens to the voices of civil society," ought to have included representatives from civil society and academia in the Advisory Committee to meet public expectations. However, the members of this term's committee still follow past practices, appointing only former bureaucrats to bear the heavy responsibility of selection. It is truly difficult to expect committee members to possess innovative and diverse perspectives, and their composition falls far short of social expectations.
   
2. The Office of the President's Review Process Should Be Timely, Public, and Transparent to Enable Public Scrutiny of Nominees
   To implement substantive review of grand justice candidates, the Legislative Yuan must be allotted sufficient time to schedule the review process while also providing opportunities for public scrutiny. Therefore, the nomination of grand justice candidates should afford the Legislative Yuan a review period of over two months, allowing society sufficient time to examine the candidates. Meanwhile, the Alliance calls upon the Advisory Committee to publish the lists of self-recommended and recommended candidates, explain the committee's nomination review criteria, and state the reasons for selecting the final candidates submitted to the president. Moreover, following the president's nomination, the relevant information of the nominees—including their education, experience, property, and taxation records—should be made fully public online for all citizens.
   
3. The Parliament Must Conduct a Rigorous Review
   In the past, the parliament's review of grand justice nominees has often been hastily scheduled. With only a half-day public hearing and a one-day review meeting, each legislator has merely 15 minutes of questioning time, often conducted in a "bloc questioning and answering" format. If nominees offer evasive answers to run out the clock, personnel appointments are ultimately decided in a sloppy manner. On May 9 of this year, the Alliance held a press conference calling for seven demands: (1) The Legislative Yuan must schedule the review process in advance and avoid hasty decisions; (2) Questionnaires should be distributed to nominees in advance, requiring them to provide representative deeds, publications, judgments, and other review materials; (3) A two-round review mechanism should be adopted, with the first round conducted in committee and the second round by the full committee; (4) Multiple nominees should be reviewed individually; (5) Committee reviews should include hearing procedures; (6) Reports should be produced following the reviews; and (7) The exercise of consent powers should take place one week after the report is produced. These seven demands were all promised by party representatives present, including Legislators Li Chun-yi, Lin Wei-chou, and Huang Kuo-chang. The Alliance holds high expectations that the new parliament will conduct a rigorous, rational, and professional review, sparing the public any further disappointment in the parliament and providing a completely new experience of review befitting the honorable status of grand justices.
   

Convener, Alliance for Monitoring Grand Justice Candidates Professor Chu Hai-yuan
Spokesperson Attorney Kao Jung-chih

Alliance Members

Association for Democratic Intervention
Taiwan Law Society
Taipei Bar Association
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Citizen Congress Watch
Taiwan Association for Innocence
Taiwan Forever
Awakening Foundation
Judicial Reform Foundation

Press Contact

Judicial Reform Foundation CEO Attorney Kao Jung-chih 02-2523-1178