Judicial Discipline and Public Hearings: The Judiciary Must Also Face Public Scrutiny-JRF Statement Ahead of the Second Public Hearing in the Shih Mu-Chin Case

In the Control Yuan's impeachment case against Shih Mu-Chin, former President of the Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission (the "Shih Case"), the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary of the Disciplinary Court held the first public oral-argument hearing in the first-instance proceedings on June 29. The referring authority, the Control Yuan, sent an investigator to appear, while Shih Mu-Chin did not appear personally and was represented by counsel. The JRF sent court observers who attended the entire hearing and recorded the proceedings.  

The Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary has scheduled a second public hearing for July 13 and, at Shih Mu-Chin's request, summoned Weng Mao-Chung and others to testify. The JRF therefore issues the following statement:  

I. Given the intense public interest in the Shih Case, the Control Yuan should appoint Members of the Control Yuan to appear in court

In 2010, a collective bribery scandal involving High Court judges led then-President of the Judicial Yuan Lai In-Jaw to resign and assume political responsibility. By comparison, the investigation into alleged interference with judicial integrity involving judicial personnel and Weng Mao-Chung, which has continued since 2019, has implicated more than one hundred judges, prosecutors, investigators, and police officers according to investigations by the Judicial Yuan and Ministry of Justice. The damage to public confidence in the judiciary is even more serious, yet no official has assumed political responsibility, much less legal responsibility.  

Shih Mu-Chin was not only the first judge publicly identified as having close dealings with Weng Mao-Chung, but also the first judge in the broader matter to be impeached by the Control Yuan and referred to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary. The public is closely watching whether the Chamber can determine the truth impartially.  

Under Point 20 of the Guidelines for the Control Yuan's Handling of Censure and Impeachment Cases, once a censure or impeachment case is finalized, the Control Yuan Members who proposed it should in principle hold a press conference to announce and explain the matter to the public. The Shih Case is a major judicial-integrity case attracting substantial public attention; the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary has ordered public proceedings; and the Control Yuan is a party to judge-disciplinary proceedings under Article 56 of the Judges Act. The JRF therefore believes that the Control Yuan should appoint one or more of its Members to represent it in court and clearly present its position. It should also retain counsel capable of handling courtroom advocacy and witness examination so that the facts and evidence can be fully clarified and the Control Yuan can properly fulfill its responsibilities as referring authority and party.  

II. Courts should not restrict public discussion in the name of "judicial independence"

According to news reports, when the Shih Case was heard publicly on June 29, Shih Mu-Chin accused the JRF of interfering with the trial by submitting an amicus curiae brief. The presiding judge stated in court that it was not a good phenomenon for civil society groups to "instruct" the court and called for preserving an undisturbed space for adjudication. Earlier, a lawyer had published an op-ed , asking whether the presiding judge had permitted Shih Mu-Chin not to appear in person. The Disciplinary Court then issued a statement stating that the presiding judge had exercised case-management authority in accordance with law and judicial independence, that outsiders should respect that authority, and that the Court regretted the "speculation" contained in the lawyer's commentary. The JRF believes these statements misunderstand the nature of public discussion and require clarification.

Judicial independence means that judges determine facts according to law and exercise judicial power independently in accordance with their duties, conscience, and ethical obligations, free from improper interference by other state powers. Public discussion of judicial cases, by contrast, is protected by constitutional freedom of expression. Such views are not binding on the court and do not, merely by being expressed, constitute improper interference or compromise judicial impartiality. Courts do not adjudicate in a vacuum detached from society. A court that listens to different perspectives in public debate and then reaches an impartial judgment can strengthen public confidence in the judiciary. Conversely, public trust is harmed when courts hide behind the shield of "judicial independence," remain unaware of people's lived realities, or selectively ignore social conditions.  

The JRF has no power to interfere with adjudication and has had no improper ex parte contact with the judges, expert lay judges, or parties in the Shih Case. To help the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary consider public views fully and avoid a decision disconnected from society, on June 28 we submitted our second Amicus Curiae Brief for the Chamber's reference and published the full text online for public scrutiny. Lawyers, moreover, have a professional responsibility to promote democracy and the rule of law and to help preserve judicial dignity and realize justice. Comments, criticism, or questions concerning judicial proceedings-so long as they do not maliciously defame judicial personnel or make baseless attacks on their character-can contribute to sound adjudication and are legitimate speech in a pluralistic democracy. Courts should respect such expression and may treat it as a form of public petition or input. Publicly rebuking those who speak out is difficult to reconcile with the principle that judges should exercise restraint in commenting outside their judgments.  

Accordingly, the presiding judge's remarks on June 29 and the Disciplinary Court's June 19 statement risk improperly discouraging public discussion of a major judicial-integrity case and constricting freedom of expression.  

III. The Judicial Yuan should amend the Judges Act to make public hearings the rule in judge-disciplinary cases

Article 57 of the Judges Act currently provides in substance that proceedings before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary are not public unless the Chamber deems a public hearing necessary or the judge referred for discipline requests one. The JRF previously submitted its first Amicus Curiae Brief on February 4, asking that the Shih Case be heard publicly. The Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary granted an exception and opened the proceedings, allowing the public to observe directly how this major judicial-integrity case is adjudicated. Public proceedings help preserve confidence in the judiciary and allow society, through the case, to consider what a "good judge" should be, confront the broader institutional issues exposed by the Weng Mao-Chung matter, and build consensus for reform.

The JRF therefore welcomes and appreciates the decision to hear the Shih Case publicly. For legal clarity, however, two minor points should be noted: (1) the Disciplinary Court's June 19 statement attributed the public hearing to "the principle of open court set out in Article 86 of the Court Organization Act," which is not the correct statutory basis; and (2) the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary has not explained why it made the Shih Case public under the proviso to Article 57 of the Judges Act.

Under the former Public Functionaries Discipline Act, disciplinary proceedings against public functionaries were conducted in private, but Article 44 of the current Act adopts public hearings as the general rule. Judge-disciplinary cases are an even stronger candidate for openness: the Control Yuan's investigation reports and impeachment documents, and the Judge Evaluation Committee's resolutions forming the basis of referrals, are already public before trial. Closing the subsequent proceedings therefore serves little purpose. Because such cases concern alleged judicial misconduct and often attract substantial public attention, making the proceedings public is important to maintaining confidence, demonstrating that the judiciary does not protect its own, and showing its determination to uphold judicial ethics and integrity. The JRF therefore calls on the Judicial Yuan to promptly initiate an amendment to Article 57 of the Judges Act making public hearings the general rule in judge-disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary.  

In summary, the JRF welcomes the public hearing of the Shih Case and makes the following three demands:  

1. The Control Yuan should appoint Members of the Control Yuan to appear and clearly state its position on the Shih Case before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary, and should retain counsel to represent it so that it can fully perform its responsibilities in the proceedings.  
2. Courts should fully respect reasonable public commentary and discussion concerning pending cases.  
3. The Judicial Yuan should promptly amend the Judges Act to make public hearings the general rule in proceedings before the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary.  

Press Contacts  

Director Hsiao I-Min, 02-2523-1178 ext. 25  

Attorney Lu Cheng-Yen, 02-2523-1178 ext. 37