Press Release | Reflecting on Stalled Reforms Ahead of Judicial Day: The Lai Administration Must Restart Social Dialogue and Forge Consensus on Reform

When President William Lai marked his first anniversary in office on May 20, 2025, multiple opinion polls consistently showed that the judiciary was the area of government performance with which the public was most dissatisfied. With Judicial Day on January 11 approaching, we must point out that judicial reform cannot be reduced to combating fraud. The government must seriously confront the difficulties facing the judiciary and the stagnation of reform.

Since President Lai took office, we have yet to see the Executive Yuan actively put forward policies or plans for judicial reform. The Judicial Yuan has likewise found it difficult to take proactive action because of the prolonged impasse over the nomination of a new president.

The Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF) believes that the ruling party, which controls the resources of the executive branch, bears the primary and undeniable responsibility for advancing judicial reform. There remains ample room for action on issues such as alleviating overwork in the judiciary, protecting crime victims, and developing human rights legislation, regardless of whether the ruling party holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan. Yet, after more than a year in office, we have not seen a comprehensive vision for judicial reform and human rights protection from either the Executive Yuan or the Judicial Yuan under President Lai's leadership.

Meanwhile, opposition lawmakers advocating judicial reform have successively raised issues including "live broadcasts of court proceedings," "reform of the detention system," and "life imprisonment without parole." Regardless of whether these proposals ultimately gain public support, the opposition has at least expressed an expectation for reform. We hope that the ruling party will seize this opportunity and use areas of consensus on judicial reform as a way to break through the current partisan deadlock. Only then will there be an opportunity to respond to the public's earnest expectations for judicial reform. To that end, the JRF makes the following four calls:

1. President Lai should promptly nominate a candidate for President of the Judicial Yuan and candidates for Grand Justice; the Legislative Yuan should review their suitability rationally and professionally.
   
2. The Lai administration should swiftly formulate effective policies to alleviate overwork in the judiciary and prevent judicial paralysis.
   
3. Judicial reform is not just about combating fraud; the Lai administration should fulfill its pre-election commitments and restart social dialogue on judicial reform.
   
4. The Lai administration should make every effort to build cross-party consensus to advance judicial reform and human rights protection.
   

1. President Lai should promptly nominate a candidate for President of the Judicial Yuan and candidates for Grand Justice; the Legislative Yuan should review their suitability rationally and professionally

The Legislative Yuan rejected both of the previous two nominees for President of the Judicial Yuan, leaving vacant to this day the position responsible for leading reform of the court system. Grand Justice Hsieh Ming-yang is currently serving as acting president. There is no denying that the prolonged vacancy in the presidency of the Judicial Yuan is a significant factor contributing to the stagnation of judicial reform.

Regarding the Legislative Yuan's exercise of its confirmation power on the previous two occasions, the Alliance for Civic Oversight of Grand Justice Nominees has already pointed out that "indiscriminately voting down nominees is not the same as rigorous review." With 167 days having passed since the Legislative Yuan last rejected a nominee for Judicial Yuan president, the JRF once again calls on President Lai to promptly nominate a candidate for the position. The Legislative Yuan, for its part, should review the nominee's suitability rationally and professionally so that the judiciary can resume normal operations as soon as possible.

2. The Lai administration should swiftly formulate effective policies to alleviate overwork in the judiciary and prevent judicial paralysis

Legislative amendments are certainly an important component of reform, but many measures for alleviating overwork in the judiciary do not actually require changes to the law.

Overwork in the judiciary has seriously affected the efficiency and quality with which prosecutors and judges handle cases, and has even pushed judicial institutions toward paralysis. When criminal caseloads exceed what existing personnel can reasonably handle, attempts to deter crime by amending laws to combat fraud, increasing penalties, or imposing performance targets are unlikely to be effective. From 2020 to 2024, the number of prosecutors in prosecutors offices across Taiwan increased by only 5%, from 1,200 to 1,259, while the number of newly received investigation cases surged by 34%, from 499,607 to 670,574. Such a stark disparity can no longer be addressed simply by increasing the number of other judicial personnel or by hiring additional "prosecutor assistants," a practice that began last year.

Faced with this flood of cases, the competent authorities should more actively increase staffing and develop countermeasures. One possibility would be to begin by adjusting prosecutorial powers. In cases involving minor offenses where a prosecutor considers non-prosecution appropriate under Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecutors could be authorized to issue a non-prosecution disposition without first conducting a full investigation. If a complainant disagrees with the disposition, remedies would remain available through reconsideration and an application for permission to initiate a private prosecution. Second, the existing deferred-prosecution system also warrants review. Deferred prosecutions accounted for 9% of concluded cases in 2015, but the rate fell to only 4% in 2024. This sharp decline demonstrates the need for a detailed review of both the design of the deferred-prosecution system and the reality of its limited use. Only then can prosecutors make full use of deferred-prosecution dispositions to divert criminal cases at the front end of the system.

Whether in civil, criminal, or compulsory enforcement cases, congestion has significantly lengthened court proceedings. When members of the public cannot obtain judicial remedies within a reasonable period of time, distrust in the judiciary will only deepen.

We want to emphasize that an overworked workplace showing no signs of improvement has already driven frontline judicial personnel to leave their positions. The Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice must each put forward concrete and feasible plans with clear timelines so that judicial personnel can see a genuine possibility and hope for improvement.

In addition to repeatedly presenting our long-developed proposal for "reducing the judicial burden" to the Judicial Yuan and Ministry of Justice, the JRF has also explained the seriousness of this problem to lawmakers on several occasions. On December 29, 2025, the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee of the Legislative Yuan also visited the Judicial Yuan to examine the problem of judicial overwork. We call on both the executive authorities and the legislature to confront this urgent problem seriously.

1 Over the same period, the number of public prosecutor investigators in prosecutors offices across Taiwan increased by 25%, from 535 to 667, while the number of court clerks increased by 8%, from 1,398 to 1,514.

3. Judicial reform is not just about combating fraud; the Lai administration should fulfill its pre-election commitments and restart social dialogue on judicial reform

Over the past two years, in response to the proliferation of fraud cases, the Lai administration has made "combating fraud" the central focus of its judicial policies. Beyond this issue, however, we also call on President William Lai to give serious attention to a broader range of judicial reform issues.

Before the presidential election, the JRF joined other civil society organizations in meeting with President Lai, during which he promised to establish an open dialogue mechanism to build social consensus on judicial reform and human rights protection. The JRF recognizes that the prolonged vacancy in the office of President of the Judicial Yuan has inevitably stalled relevant policy directions and planning, affecting the timetable for President Lai to fulfill that commitment. Nevertheless, regardless of whether or when the current partisan deadlock is broken, we call on the Lai administration to immediately begin discussions on judicial reform rather than disappoint public expectations and ultimately hand in a blank sheet on judicial reform.

4. The Lai administration should make every effort to build cross-party consensus to advance judicial reform and human rights protection

Apart from reducing the burden on the judiciary, there are numerous judicial reform and human rights issues that do not require legislative amendments. For example:

• Nearly three years have passed since the Crime Victim Rights Protection Act was passed at third reading, yet the Executive Yuan has still not completed its review of the "Enhanced Crime Victim Protection Program." Although the Ministry of Justice held one external consultation meeting last year, there has been no further progress.
  
• In recent years, members of the public have repeatedly petitioned the JRF regarding deaths allegedly resulting from delays in sending inmates for medical treatment, highlighting serious deficiencies in the correctional healthcare system. We call on the Ministry of Justice to confront this problem immediately so that tragedies in which inmates are "sent out for medical treatment only when they are on the verge of death" do not occur again.
  
• The media have repeatedly obtained exclusive access during investigations to "statements by defendants and witnesses" and "updates on the progress of investigations," raising concerns about violations of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations. The implementation of this principle, as well as accountability for violations, should be comprehensively reviewed.
  
• Although courts have repeatedly ruled that mandatory surgery requirements are unconstitutional, the Ministry of the Interior continues in practice to instruct household registration offices that, "until the Executive Yuan completes the relevant legislative process, applications for changes to gender registration shall continue to be handled pursuant to the Ministry of the Interior order dated November 3, 2008." As a result, transgender people seeking to change their gender registration must still submit a medical diagnosis certifying the removal of gonadal organs. The human rights violations caused by this prolonged administrative inaction urgently require the competent authorities to proactively change their practices in accordance with human rights protections.
  

Furthermore, many issues requiring legislative amendments remain only at the stage of agency deliberation and urgently require comprehensive and substantive institutional reform. For example:

• Taiwan should recognize the importance and urgency of establishing a National Preventive Mechanism against torture, promptly advance legislative deliberation on the draft Enforcement Act of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and begin establishing mechanisms that will enable administrative agencies to implement the Convention.
  
• Following Constitutional Court Judgment No. 13 of 2023 (Case Concerning the Sale of Category 1 Narcotics), the Ministry of Justice has not seriously examined how the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act should be amended. A comprehensive reassessment is necessary.
  
• To implement the principles of equality and non-discrimination and ensure that everyone can enjoy and exercise rights on an equal basis with others, the Executive Yuan should promptly and carefully deliberate the proposed Anti-Discrimination Act and promote legislation for an Enforcement Act of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, while initiating dialogue with the public.
  
• The proposed Act Governing Qualifications and Appointment of Legal Professionals failed to complete the legislative process before the expiration of the previous legislative term. Civil society has expressed many differing views regarding the training, examination, and appointment of legal professionals. The competent authorities should broadly solicit these views before reconsidering and resubmitting the proposal.
  

The important human rights and judicial reform issues described above include matters that require no legislative amendments as well as matters that still require careful deliberation and collective consideration by the competent authorities before legislation is proposed. Some of these issues are clearly less politically controversial. If the competent authorities deliberate them properly, they will not necessarily encounter obstruction when submitted to the Legislative Yuan. The Ministry of Justice's recent consideration of comprehensive amendments to the rules governing extinctive prescription for claims under the Civil Code is one example. We therefore call on the competent authorities responsible for these issues, including the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior, to act promptly and put forward comprehensive reform and governance blueprints.

Even among bills currently awaiting review and passage by the Legislative Yuan, there are reform proposals that enjoy substantial cross-party consensus or involve relatively little political controversy. These include extending the statute of limitations for prosecuting defendants accused of sexual offenses against children and youth, reforming the divorce system, and rationalizing the prescriptive period for claims for crime victim compensation. Amid the current high level of confrontation in the legislature, we call on both the ruling and opposition parties to temporarily set aside partisan battles over highly controversial political bills and devote greater attention to legislation concerning the rights and interests of the people.

Press Conference Remarks

Huang Hsu-tien ｜ Chairperson, Judicial Reform Foundation

The acting president is undoubtedly working hard, but an acting officeholder has little room to undertake long-term planning for judicial reform. The President should promptly nominate a suitable candidate, while the legislature should engage in rational debate when exercising its confirmation power. Together, they should resolve the impasse created by the vacancy in the presidency of the Judicial Yuan.

Regarding the burden on the judiciary, we must consider how reform can allow those who work hard to remain in the system and continue striving for a better judiciary.

Reform cannot be limited to combating fraud. Social dialogue must be initiated as part of the judicial reform process to generate greater consensus and make reform possible.

Not long after the JRF was established 30 years ago, we released the first edition of our Judicial Reform Blueprint. Some of its proposals have been implemented, while others still require further effort. At the same time, new reform issues have emerged that demand our attention. Therefore, on the occasion of the JRF's 30th anniversary, we will release a new edition of the Judicial Reform Blueprint. We hope that it will serve as a starting point that encourages further valuable contributions and draws greater public attention to these issues. We also hope that the ruling and opposition parties can set aside their differences and reach agreement on legislative reforms in areas where public consensus is strongest. President Lai should also initiate social dialogue to advance judicial reform. In the new year, we hope that our judiciary will continue to improve.

Chien Chien-Jung ｜ Standing Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation

Today, there are no longer corrupt, law-breaking "bad judges" in the judiciary. Yet despite the hard work of so many conscientious judges, why has the judiciary's image in the eyes of the public still failed to improve? I believe it is because our judicial system places too much emphasis on superficial performance metrics. If the Judicial Yuan continues to judge performance solely by numbers while disregarding the quality of individual cases and due process, adjudication will inevitably be driven by those performance metrics. The way the Judicial Yuan treats its judges will ultimately shape how judges treat the parties appearing before them.

Under such an evaluation system, judges can become only "good judges" according to performance indicators, rather than the good judges the public expects. As a result, whether in cases where appeals are dismissed or defendants are convicted of fraud, miscarriages of justice will continue to be produced. The people affected include both ordinary citizens and business owners. Regardless of who they are, individuals are vulnerable when facing the judicial system. From the JRF's perspective, progress in judicial reform and human rights protection has been far too slow and remains well below the standards to which we aspire.

Chen Yangen ｜ Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation

"International human rights conventions" are not simply about incorporating treaties into domestic legislation. They must be implemented in everyday life and genuinely perform their function of protecting people, particularly in the areas of preventing torture and combating discrimination.

Take the Su Chien-ho case as an example. Although the criminal convictions were overturned, the related civil case has still not been vindicated after 35 years. A central problem is that, in the civil proceedings, the parties themselves are required to bear the burden of proving that confessions extracted through torture should be excluded. The standard established by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is precisely that statements obtained through torture must not be used as evidence, whether in civil or criminal proceedings. This gap demonstrates why an enforcement act and an institutional mechanism for preventing torture are indispensable.

Recent draft amendments to the Social Order Maintenance Act attempted to address hate speech and generated significant controversy. With respect to how hate speech should be defined, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has long provided clear standards. Moreover, when international experts visited Taiwan in 2024, they also recommended that Taiwan enact an enforcement act.

Taiwan's anti-discrimination legal framework is highly fragmented, with separate legislation addressing different groups. It is no longer capable of responding adequately to rapidly changing social realities, including new forms of discrimination arising from AI and algorithms. Taiwan should enact an Anti-Discrimination Act to provide a coherent legal foundation for addressing discrimination.

I want to emphasize that these three pieces of legislation are not radical reforms. They represent minimum standards that Taiwan has promised both the international community and its own people that it will meet, and they are laws the government pledged two years ago to enact.

Luo Fangchen ｜ Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation

The Crime Victim Rights Protection Act was amended three years ago, yet the Executive Yuan has still not completed its review of the Enhanced Crime Victim Protection Program. Recently, concerns have also emerged regarding the medical rights of inmates who reportedly died after delays in receiving medical treatment in correctional facilities. In addition, there have been reports that media outlets may have obtained details of ongoing investigations from prosecutors and police, raising concerns about the implementation of the principle of non-disclosure of investigations. These examples demonstrate that the executive branch still has much work to do and many practices to review even in areas that do not require new legislation.

Despite the tremendous burden on the judiciary, our courts have repeatedly rendered judgments protecting human rights, while administrative agencies have remained passive. For example, the administrative interpretation requiring the removal of gonadal organs before a person may change their gender registration has been found unconstitutional and inapplicable by the courts, and the Control Yuan has also issued an investigation report on the matter. Yet the administrative authorities have still failed to act. Unlawful administrative practices must be corrected at the same time so that judicial reform and human rights protection can be fully implemented.

In the 30 years since the JRF was established, a substantial portion of the goals set out in the original Judicial Reform Blueprint have been achieved. Some, of course, require renewed review and revision, while changing times have also created the need for new strategies and objectives. To continue advancing judicial reform and strengthening the protection of people's rights, the JRF expects to release its "Second-Generation Judicial Reform Blueprint" in the middle of this year, setting out our views on the future of judicial reform. We also hope that it can provide a basis for discussion, help build social consensus, and enable us to take bold steps toward reform.

---

Attendees

Huang Hsu-tien ｜ Chairperson, Judicial Reform Foundation

Chien Chien-Jung ｜ Standing Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation

Chen Yangen ｜ Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation

Luo Fangchen ｜ Executive Committee Member, Judicial Reform Foundation

Press Contact

Elvin Lu, Attorney-at-Law, Director of the Legal Policy Department, Judicial Reform Foundation

Telephone: 02-2523-1178#37

Email: elvin@jrf.org.tw