The Citizen Direct Request Evaluation Mechanism under the Judges Act Takes Effect, and Various Supporting Measures Await Monitoring – Statement on the Implementation of the New Judges Act

The Judges Act was passed upon its third reading on June 28, 2019, bringing major reforms to the evaluation system. The biggest change is the shift from the rule where only civil society organizations could request evaluations to a rule where only individuals may directly request them. After a year of preparation, the new law finally takes effect today (July 17).

Whether the new law can be successfully implemented depends crucially on the content of its subsidiary legislation, which concerns the personnel and procedures for handling evaluation cases. The Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice have recently published or announced drafts of relevant subsidiary regulations. During the public comment period, the JRF submitted written comments on draft amendments including the Enforcement Rules of the Judges Act, the Organic Rules of the Judges Evaluation Commission, the Implementation Measures for Judges Evaluation, the Organic Rules of the Prosecutors Evaluation Commission, and the Implementation Measures for Prosecutors Evaluation. However, as shown in the attached table, some of the subsidiary regulations under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice had still not been published by the time the new law took effect, and most of the concerns raised by civil society regarding these regulations were ignored. Consequently, serious concerns remain regarding the diversity of opinions within the evaluation commissions, the independence of their operations, and the adequacy of their staffing under the operation of the new law.

The amendment of the Judges Act is an important judicial reform policy aimed at enhancing public trust in the judiciary. However, if the direct evaluation request mechanism makes it difficult for the public to access and utilize it upon taking effect, not only will the good intentions of the reform be lost, but it may also backfire, making the public perceive the judiciary as even more closed-off and conservative. The JRF has already received successive phone calls from citizens stating that they cannot find the contact window for the evaluation commission or do not understand how to request an evaluation. The Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice should genuinely strengthen explanations regarding evaluation procedures and contact windows, track and understand the resources needed by the evaluation commissions, and help them establish adequate case-handling capacities, rather than dodging the potential volume of cases resulting from direct public requests.

Over the past nine years, the JRF has assisted on the front lines in handling evaluation appeal cases. In the future, although we will no longer be the principal entity requesting evaluations, if citizens encounter difficulties when making their own requests, they are welcome to provide cases for our research. Should the evaluation mechanism fail to function effectively, we do not rule out assisting citizens in petitioning the Control Yuan. On the issue of weeding out incompetent judges and prosecutors, the JRF will continue its supervision and efforts.

Authorized Regulation	JRF's Comments	Result after Expressing Opinions
Pre-announcement of amendments to the "Organic Rules of the Judges Evaluation Commission"	The proportion of non-legal professionals among selection committee members was not explicitly stipulated. The executive secretary is not a full-time position; dedicated personnel should be hired independently. No offices, branch offices, or chapters were established.	March 6, 2020: Amended and promulgated the "Organic Rules of the Judges Evaluation Commission." Civil society opinions were not adopted.
March 30, 2020: Pre-announcement of amendments to the "Implementation Measures for Judges Evaluation"	If procedural requirements are incomplete, the public should be allowed to supplement them first. The provision allowing dedicated personnel to refuse document review during the preliminary review and screening panel procedural review stages exceeds the enabling statute. Other parties or crime victims in cases investigated concurrently should also be allowed to express their opinions. Decisions not to accept a case should state the reasons.	June 5, 2020: Amended and promulgated the "Implementation Measures for Judges Evaluation." Opinions 3 and 4 were discussed at the Judicial Yuan's "Briefing Session on the New System for Individual Judge Evaluations and the Disciplinary Court," but were not incorporated into the measures.
March 31, 2020: Pre-announcement of amendments to the "Enforcement Rules of the Judges Act"	The definition of a victim as "a person who suffers direct harm due to a crime" is too narrow. The proportion of non-legal professionals among Disciplinary Court lay participants should be explicitly stipulated.	July 10, 2020: Amended and promulgated the "Enforcement Rules of the Judges Act." Only opinion 1 was adopted, removing the definition of a crime victim so that the evaluation commission determines the requesting party.
June 20, 2020: Pre-announcement of the draft amendment to the "Organic Rules of the Prosecutors Evaluation Commission"	The executive secretary is not a full-time position; dedicated personnel should be hired independently. No offices, branch offices, or chapters were established.	Not yet published
June 29, 2020: Pre-announcement of the draft amendment to the "Implementation Measures for Prosecutors Evaluation"	If procedural requirements are incomplete, the public should be allowed to supplement them first. The provision allowing dedicated personnel to refuse document review during the preliminary review and screening panel procedural review stages exceeds the enabling statute. Other parties or crime victims in cases investigated concurrently should also be allowed to express their opinions. Decisions not to accept a case should state the reasons.	Not yet published