Op-Ed | Huang Hsiu-t'ien: The Current Standards for Judicial Reform Are Too Low

In the presidential election, opposition presidential candidates Hou You-ih and Ko Wen-je each proposed their own judicial reform agendas. The most crucial issue in judicial reform depends on where the government draws the line. The current standards for judicial reform are too low; while there has been overall progress, we are still a long way from establishing a judicial system full of human warmth that fairly and reasonably resolves people's disputes.

The 2017 National Congress on Judicial Reform brought together many good ideas. However, when it came to subsequent implementation, which involved various ministries and institutional decision-making, only half-measures were taken. If the government wishes to promote judicial reform, it must have both the determination and the methods.

Attitude, quality, and speed are the keys to advancing judicial reform. Compared to thirty years ago, judges' attitudes have improved, but it is still by no means rare today for parties to face sneers and mockery, or to have their cases ignored.

The JRF handles many complaints, a high proportion of which involve courtroom demeanor. Some judges or prosecutors utter words that disregard the human dignity of the parties, fail to explain the reasons for not conducting investigations, mock the parties, or coerce them into settlements.

Furthermore, the quality of judgments is the core of the entire judicial system. Taiwan has a high volume of cases and a high appeal rate, yet the judicial authorities have narrowed the gateway to appeal, locking ordinary people out. I believe the true reason for the excessive number of cases is that first-instance proceedings are not handled well, leading to a high rate of appeals by the people. Panel trials should be strengthened to reduce the sources of litigation, and the adjudication capacity of first-instance judges should be enhanced.

At the present stage, the government should set a ten-year timeline to transfer judges from the Supreme Court and high courts to courts of first instance, thereby boosting the capacity of district courts. This is a necessary growing pain of judicial reform. In addition, recruiting non-career lawyers to serve as judges and expanding the role of lawyers in conciliation work are both potential solutions.

Moreover, civil procedure currently lacks rules of evidence, and domestic forensic investigation procedures, steps, methods, and standards for expert evaluation are still under study. Such institutional deficiencies will inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice.

Is physical pain more painful, or is emotional pain more painful? The answer should be that both are very painful. When people are in severe pain, they go to the emergency room, but the judiciary takes its time. I once made a joke that our lawyers' watches only have years and months. I suppose that waiting in vain is the greatest sorrow.

(Dictated by Huang Hsiu-t'ien, Chairman of the Judicial Reform Foundation; compiled by reporter Fang Ho-ting. Originally published in the United Daily News)