Statement | "All Legislative Caucuses Should Allow Legislators to Vote Independently and Prevent Judicial Reform from Stagnating!" Statement by JRF Regarding the Responses of the Nominees for President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan

Tomorrow (the 24th), the Legislative Yuan will exercise its power of consent for Grand Justice appointments. As a member of the "Civilian Alliance for Monitoring Grand Justice Nominees," the Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF), together with partner civil society organizations, continues to monitor the nomination and review process for the Grand Justices. Regarding the nominees' responses to our questionnaire, JRF affirms their emphasis on the presumption of innocence, due process, the principle of non-disclosure of investigation, and digital human rights. In particular, since the President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan hold administrative duties and are responsible for promoting judicial reform policies, civil society organizations have a duty based on public oversight to provide comments and suggestions on these policies. Therefore, JRF issues the following statement regarding the responses from the nominees for President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan:

Between 2016 and 2017, President Tsai Ing-wen adopted 326 resolutions through the "National Judicial Reform Guiding Conference." While progress has been made on some resolutions, many others—including seven major unfinished initiatives such as "enacting a Whistleblower Protection Act," "solidifying and enhancing the quality of first-instance trials," "establishing a Judicial Science Committee to improve forensic appraisal quality," "enacting a Mediation Fundamental Act," "establishing an independent special remedy system for criminal miscarriages of justice," and "strengthening reputation restoration and social reintegration for victims of wrongful convictions"—remain at the "research and discussion" stage (see August 7, 2023 Press Release).

To focus on the future of judicial reform, JRF met with presidential candidates from all three major parties at the end of 2023. At that time, then-candidate Lai Ching-te promised that if elected, he would establish a "Judicial Reform Committee" upon taking office to ensure diverse civic voices can continuously participate in and oversee judicial reform (see October 25, 2023 Press Release).

Presidential Nominee Chang Wen-chen: Expanding Social and Professional Communication and Changing the "Top-Down" Policy Promotion Model

For the full text of the response, see: Response of Nominee Chang Wen-chen

In her response to the civil society questionnaire, nominee Professor Chang Wen-chen pointed out that past judicial reform has "many aspects that remain uncompleted or require review," such as: "The promotion of restorative justice urgently requires personnel training and the injection of relevant resources, especially in coordination with relevant educational components. The effectiveness in this area has been extremely limited." During the Legislative Yuan's review of the personnel appointments, she proposed three directions—institutional mechanisms, professional efficiency, and international linkages—to achieve the goal of "building public trust in the courts." Among these, "institutional mechanisms" and "professional efficiency" are closely intertwined with judicial reform.

Regarding "institutional mechanisms," Professor Chang Wen-chen mentioned that in order to continuously promote judicial reform and broadly incorporate the opinions of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, academics, and civil society organizations, she advocates: "Establishing a 'Judicial Reform Effectiveness Assessment and Promotion Committee' within the Judicial Yuan that incorporates representatives from all sides, serving as a platform for subsequent discussions and collaboration on judicial reform, and establishing 'policy and human rights impact assessments for bills.' For mechanisms already established, their effectiveness must be evaluated based on empirical evidence; for mechanisms that failed to build consensus or be effectively promoted in the past." Drawing on the concept of establishing "specialized committees" in the United States and the European Union, she proposes establishing a "specialized committee" composed of judges, scholars, and civil society organizations to put forward clear and actionable solutions for relevant policies; alternatively, through collaboration between "specialized committees" and individual courts, the past "top-down" policy promotion model of the Judicial Yuan can be transformed.

Regarding "professional efficiency," in order to resolve the issue of overwork among judicial personnel, Professor Chang Wen-chen proposed alleviating judicial burnout by expanding and effectively allocating judicial resources, optimizing case workflows, and integrating information systems. First, judicial resources should be expanded and the staffing quotas for judges and related judicial personnel effectively allocated. Currently, Taiwan has 9.38 judges per 100,000 population, which is far lower than the median of 22.9 judges per 100,000 population in EU countries. Judicial budgets account for approximately 1% of the government's general budget, and Taiwan's per capita judicial expenditure is NT$1,164, which is far below half of the European median of NT$2,240—an issue that urgently needs to be addressed. Second, Professor Chang Wen-chen mentioned the necessity of actively promoting the simplification of judgment drafting, optimizing trial workflows, and introducing automated document processing systems to update case information in real time, shorten document processing times, and reduce human burdens, allowing judges to focus on substantive adjudication work.

Regarding Vice Presidential Nominee Yao Li-min

For the full text of the response, see: Response of Nominee Yao Li-min

Mr. Yao Li-min believes that judicial reform should continue to expand its scale of social participation, and he generally supports the reform directions proposed by nominee Chang Wen-chen; JRF will not repeat those comments here. However, a distinctive aspect of nominee Yao Li-min's response is his support for expanding the implementation of the "國民法官 (Lay Assessor) System" and the "system of non-transfer of dossiers and evidence (卷證不併送制度)" with regard to reforms of the lay assessor system and criminal procedure. The expansion of the "system of non-transfer of dossiers and evidence" is a position JRF has supported since the first generation of our judicial reform blueprint, and we affirm that it should be gradually promoted with supporting design measures. Nevertheless, regarding the expansion of the scope of application for Citizen Judges Act cases, given that the Citizen Judges Act has only been in operation for two years and its case operations still await observation, any expansion of its application should be evaluated prudently rather than rushed.

Judicial Reform is a National Consensus; Do Not Let It Stagnate Due to Party Competition!

Among the aforementioned responses, JRF expresses its support for this path of judicial reform, particularly Chang Wen-chen's expression of willingness to establish a "Judicial Reform Effectiveness Assessment and Promotion Committee" and her advocacy for "improving judicial overwork," "policy and human rights impact assessments," "specialized committees," and "collaborating with frontline courts and grassroots judges."

However, regarding how the "Judicial Reform Effectiveness Assessment and Promotion Committee" will carry out cross-court coordination, how to strike a balance between professional communication and social communication, and whether it can perform functions equivalent to or more advanced than conferences convened by the President—should Professor Chang Wen-chen assume the office of President of the Judicial Yuan, JRF will continue to monitor the implementation of this reform concept.

Finally, the public's expectations for judicial reform transcend party lines. When the judicial branch cannot operate normally, the entire populace becomes the victim. Having actively engaged in judicial reform for thirty years, JRF sincerely hopes that judicial reform will be fully realized. We once again solemnly urge the opposition parties to handle tomorrow's (the 24th) consent vote prudently, and not allow it to devolve into opposition for opposition's sake, thereby obstructing the promotion of judicial reform and causing judicial reform to stagnate.

Political parties should no longer return to the old path of hijacking legislators' free will with party discipline; instead, based on judicial professionalism, human rights protection, and democratic ideals, they should enable legislators to vote independently based on their personal conviction regarding the nominees' suitability. We also sincerely appeal to legislators across all political parties to uphold their conscience, cast aside party shackles, recognize the direction of judicial reform that benefits all citizens, stand on the side of the people, and cast a vote in support of judicial reform!