Op-Ed | Lack of Proactivity in Judge Evaluation Fails to Foster Judicial Trust

Over the three years since the implementation of the amended Judges Act, the Judicial Reform Foundation has continued to monitor the operation of the Judges Evaluation Commission, pointing out in its first- and second-year observation reports that citizen-requested evaluations remained at zero and operational efficacy was poor.

Three years later, we have finally seen the first successful citizen-requested judge evaluation case. Judge Li Chao-jung, the subject of the evaluation, sought to evade case management deadlines, resulting in the parties' case being subsequently deemed withdrawn, which infringed upon the parties' right of access to court and damaged public trust in the judiciary. Regrettably, after considering all circumstances, the Judges Evaluation Commission nevertheless concluded that there was "no necessity for disciplinary action."

Although the Commission reviewed audio recordings during its investigation to vindicate the parties in this resolution, it ultimately concluded that the matter did not reach the threshold for disciplinary referral, which can only be described as overly lenient. Most regrettably, in the concluding paragraph of the evaluation decision, the Commission stated: "Since the petitioner has presented no other specific and relevant evidence, this Commission has no basis to determine that the judge under evaluation committed any professional misconduct." This highlights the persistent problem of the Commission's lack of proactivity. According to past judgments of the Disciplinary Court, the objective of the evaluation system is to uncover the behavioral patterns and overall personality profile of the subject under evaluation. Paragraph 6, Article 35 of the Judges Act explicitly stipulates: "Where necessary to determine 'behavioral patterns,' the Judges Evaluation Commission may concurrently investigate and deliberate upon professional misconduct not covered by the request." It is thus clear that the principle of passive jurisdiction ("no action without a complaint") does not apply to evaluations; rather, the Commission must actively investigate other instances of misconduct to observe the "overall personality profile" of the subject. Conversely, when the Commission abandons this proactivity, its function is inevitably weakened, making it difficult to serve as the cornerstone of judicial trust.

※ This article was published in Liberty Times on 2023/09/24 05:30