Defending Democracy, Peaceful Assembly is Not a Crime: Pre-trial Press Conference on the Executive Yuan Occupation Case

Today marks the second-instance debate hearing for the March 23 Executive Yuan occupation case. The defendants and defense counsel expect the second-instance judges to reference the judgment from the March 18 Legislative Yuan occupation case, respect the freedoms of speech and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution, deter the police and prosecutors from routinely prosecuting citizens under the Criminal Code, and render an acquittal. Furthermore, while the state judiciary continues to prosecute citizens who participated in the occupation four years ago, it has consistently failed to identify the police officers who committed acts of violence on that day or to clarify the responsibilities of commanders at various levels. Such disproportionate and unbalanced actions are difficult to convince the public. We expect the judges to value the significance of the anti-black-box cross-strait trade agreement movement in Taiwan's constitutional democracy and to deliver an appropriate ruling through the judgment.

Both the Occupation of the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan Were Part of the Anti-Black-Box Trade Agreement Movement

Photo / Wei Yang, defendant in the Executive Yuan occupation case

The first-instance judgment of the March 23 Executive Yuan occupation case sentenced a total of 11 people to imprisonment for offenses such as obstructing public officers and damaging articles officially kept by public officers. The first-instance court handled the occupation of the Legislative Yuan and the occupation of the Executive Yuan separately, turning a blind eye to the reality that both constituted a single, holistic movement. It deliberately used separation-of-powers theories to distinguish between the functions of the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan, and subsequently denied the legitimacy of occupying the Executive Yuan on the grounds that other legal remedies were available, departing from public expectations of the state. Given the historical and spatial context of the time, the occupation of the Legislative Yuan had reached a stalemate. If occupation was a necessary means, its evaluation should not differ simply because the Executive Yuan was occupied. Moreover, subsequent facts proved that it was precisely the occupation of the Executive Yuan that opened up the possibility for further dialogue.

Both the Legislative and Executive Branches Are Targets of Our Protest

The first-instance judgment of the March 18 case affirmed the application of civil disobedience to the occupation of the Legislative Yuan. Although the second-instance court no longer relied on civil disobedience as the grounds for acquittal, it still defended the application of the constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly in this case. We believe that the occupation action launched in response to the anti-black-box trade agreement naturally deserves the same treatment. Whether it is the legislative branch or the executive branch, both must be accountable to public opinion. We expect the second-instance court not to be bogged down in semantic disputes over whether an institution is representative of public opinion or executive, but rather to safeguard the people's freedom of speech and assembly from a constitutional height.

State Violence Remains Unidentified to This Day, Yet Judicial Trials Continue Unabated

Photo / Volunteer Attorney Yu Po-hsiang

We deeply regret to see that, on the one hand, the state spends a massive amount of time and litigation resources prosecuting individuals who participated in the occupation, while on the other hand, it easily lets go of the police officers who committed violence at the time. Nearly a hundred people were injured in the state violence incident that night, yet no one needs to bear corresponding responsibility. The violent police officers cannot be found, and the commanders not only faced no disciplinary actions but even enjoyed smooth official careers. All of these issues test the current government's capacity for self-reflection regarding state violence and whether the judiciary can serve as the final line of defense against government dereliction of duty. We hope that the state can reliably hold the derelict police officers of that night accountable and implement proper police education to prevent similar incidents from happening again.

Expecting the Judgment to Manifest the Spirit of "Civil Disobedience" and Defend the Democratic Constitutional Order

The defendants and the defense counsel re-emphasize that the action of occupying the Executive Yuan was no different from occupying the Legislative Yuan; both were acts of resistance by the people in response to the Ma Ying-jeou administration's disregard for public opinion. Whether or not the occupied site was a public opinion institution should not be the point of contention in this case. The second-instance judges should value the spirit of civil disobedience and the right of resistance, safeguard the people's freedoms of speech and assembly, and render acquittals for the 17 second-instance defendants (including the 6 who were acquitted in the first instance but appealed by the prosecutor).

Attending Representatives

• Li Kuan-ling
• Lin Chien-hsing
• Lin Tang-yu
• Hsu Che-jung
• Ch'en T'ing-hao
• Huang Kuo-yang
• Liu Chien-ming
• Liu Ching-wen
• Hsieh Sheng-yu
• Wei Yang

• Attorney Yu Po-hsiang
• Attorney Wang Po-hsuan
• Attorney Wang Shuo
• Attorney Wang Lung-kuan
• Attorney Ho Chao-tung
• Attorney Li Ai-lun
• Attorney Wu Yi-te
• Attorney Lin Tzu-hsiang
• Attorney Lin Chun-hung
• Attorney Lin Ch'i-ying
• Attorney Hung Wan-heng
• Attorney Hung Chia-cheng
• Attorney Weng Kuo-yen
• Attorney Kuo Te-tian
• Attorney Ch'en Hsueh-hua
• Attorney Tseng Wei-kai
• Attorney Huang Shu-fang
• Attorney Huang Yi-wen
• Attorney Chao Wei-cheng
• Attorney Tsai Ya-ying
• Attorney Hsueh Chin-feng

• Wei Yang
• Ch'en Wei-ting
• Hsu Che-jung
• Huang Kuo-yang
• Liu Ching-wen
• Yu Po-hsiang