The Judicial Yuan's Personnel Philosophy as Seen in the One-Step Appointment of the High Court President

On December 11, the Judicial Yuan convened a Personnel Review Committee. High Court President Ch'en Tsung-chen was about to complete his six-year term, and would return to the Supreme Court and be appointed as a division chief. Most bafflingly, Supreme Court Division Chief Shih Mu-ch'in was promoted in a single leap, being directly appointed as the President of the Taiwan High Court. Even the media reported this as a dark horse candidate!

I simply cannot comprehend the personnel thinking and logic of the Judicial Yuan! Two years ago, when Division Chief Shih was promoted to Supreme Court Division Chief, he was already questioned by Personnel Review Committee members regarding his "fickle" attitude in adjudicating the corruption case of judge Hsu Ts'ung-yuan. Whenever the lower court handed down a guilty verdict, he revoked it and remanded the case; whenever it handed down an acquittal, he likewise revoked it and remanded the case. Out of nearly 17 years of litigation in this case, 15 years were consumed by 10 consecutive remands for retrial. The final result unexpectedly concluded that the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal in the sixth retrial was filed past the statutory deadline, thereby dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds and finalizing the case in an "unclear and unaccountable" manner. For this, the Judicial Yuan even had to pay a hefty sum of冤獄賠償 (wrongful imprisonment compensation) to the "corrupt judge." However, because the system of confidential case assignment had not yet been abolished at the time, it was impossible to ascertain whether the case had been assigned to Judge Shih Mu-ch'in as the judge-in-charge, and his personnel appointment as division chief was thus approved by vote.

Last year, amid a petition by over five hundred grassroots judges urging the careful selection of the Supreme Court President to prioritize judicial reform, several grassroots judges who had the courage to challenge entrenched judicial ills boldly pulled back the mysterious veil of confidential case assignment during an audience with the President to discuss judicial reform. Finally, under a strong social consensus, the Judicial Yuan stepped forward to abolish this opaque assignment regulation. The procedures for adjudicating cases in the Supreme Court gradually moved toward transparent, due process of law, thereby opening a new page of reform for routine oral argument.

Yet, despite a high level of social consensus and a confidential case assignment system that even the President of the Judicial Yuan found rather objectionable, Supreme Court judges at the time supported it almost without exception—including then-President Yang Jen-shou, who claimed to have destroyed numerous documents related to political lobbying. What broke the hearts of grassroots judges was that, apart from one or two judges who expressed a stance that confidential case assignment should be abolished, the Supreme Court almost unanimously backed the old system kept in the dark, including Division Chief Shih Mu-ch'in, who lacked the courage to stand alone against the crowd and side with due process. Lacking such courage and responsibility, showing no regard for procedural justice, and displaying no vision for judicial reform, on what grounds could such a person board a helicopter and, without any prior experience in administrative leadership roles, be "promoted in a single leap" directly to the presidency of the High Court?

The public may not know how powerful the High Court President is. He exercises judicial administrative supervision over judges in all courts across the country (except the Supreme Court), holds the substantive right to recommend presidents of various courts, and has the authority to initiate self-discipline and disciplinary action against all judges. Not to mention that under our country's regulations restricting appeals to the third instance, the High Court functions in many cases as the court of final appeal on both fact and law; its influence is no less than that of the Supreme Court President, and its incumbent is moreover the "reserve candidate" for the Supreme Court presidency. The appointment of the High Court President naturally symbolizes the Judicial Yuan's attitude toward judicial reform and the protection of human rights.

What is Division Chief Shih Mu-ch'in's concept of human rights? Although some people say he values the protection of human rights (which is actually the bounden duty of every judge and goes without saying), civil society groups harbor grave doubts over the wrongful conviction of Chiou Ho-shun and others in the kidnapping of Lu Cheng, a case with the longest detention period in judicial history (up to 23 years), which was repeatedly revoked and remanded by Division Chief Shih, leaving it unresolved. Appearing to care about human life, he lacked the courage to render a verdict of acquittal himself. It was not until the Act for Speedy Trial stipulated that the maximum period of detention shall not exceed eight years—perhaps out of fear of the pressure of releasing Chiou Ho-shun—that the case was suddenly dismissed on appeal, finalizing the death penalty. This drew outside criticism that the Criminal Speedy Trial Act had been turned into a "Speedy Execution Act."

The case of Lin Yü-ju, described by the media as the "startling daughter-in-law" whose death penalty was finalized, also originated from the collegial panel headed by Division Chief Shih. Because of public sentencing arguments, the outside world was able to learn that Lin Yü-ju's IQ was a mere 57, lower than that of an elementary school student, and even lower than the 69 of Hsu Jung-chou in the "Air Force General Headquarters Female Child Rape-Murder Case," whose confession of murder was rejected by the High Court, leading to an acquittal. The case ignored the professional appraisal report, was unwilling to thoroughly investigate favorable sentencing factors such as whether Lin Yü-ju had been subjected to long-term domestic violence, and disregarded the United Nations resolutions based on the two covenants requiring that persons with intellectual disabilities not be sentenced to death. Most ridiculously, it was unwilling to apply the principle that "three life sentences equal a judgment of exemption from punishment," refusing even to see Lin Yü-ju for the last time and determined to grant her a death penalty no matter what! This provoked an outcry and support from human rights and women's groups.

"Protecting" the human rights of a corrupt judge while ignoring the right to life of vulnerable common folks—what kind of human rights values are these supposed to be?

Reviewing this incomprehensible personnel case the day after World Human Rights Day, my heart is exceptionally heavy. Official members of the Personnel Review Committee, perhaps constrained by official bureaucratic ethics, or out of respect for seniority or personal ties, chose to remain silent even if they had reservations. The person in charge always claims to take full responsibility for the success or failure of personnel cases, yet we have never seen any high-ranking official truly take responsibility for an improper personnel appointment. Judicial reform requires individuals with correct human rights concepts to carry it out. Especially when it concerns the High Court President—the personnel leader of the country's ordinary court system—how vital is this impact! It must not be handled hastily and carelessly!

※ This article is an abridged version published in the Liberty Plaza of the Liberty Times on December 11, 2013. This is the complete and unabridged text.