Judicial Budget

On November 20, 1996, the JRF accepted an invitation to a banquet hosted by then-President of the Judicial Yuan, SHIH CH'I-YANG, during which it formally presented five reform demands. On January 20, 1996, it further convened a seminar inviting both the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice to discuss them together. These five demands shared a key characteristic: they could all be promoted without requiring legislative amendments, yet they repeatedly failed to receive a sincere response.

• 1
  Discuss the placement of judges' nameplates on the bench during court sessions across all courts nationwide. (A demand for judicial self-respect and respect for others—even bus drivers display their names; why do judges dare not show theirs?)
• 2
  Discuss formulating a mechanism to regularly publish lists of individuals attempting to lobby judicial cases during the investigative stage. (An important strategy against interference)
• 3
  Establish a national computer retrieval system for judgments and prosecutorial documents across all levels of court and discuss terms for open access. (Oversight is only possible under sunshine, which also benefits the elevation of legal standards)
• 4
  Discuss concrete methods to gradually implement the requirement that prosecutors are present at court hearings from beginning to end and earnestly carry out public prosecution.
• 5
  Formulate methods for centralized trial proceedings by judges.

In 1998, the JRF actively promoted the constitutionalization of judicial budget independence, arguing that the Judicial Yuan should break free from the Executive Yuan's budgetary jurisdiction and independently compile its own budget. This demand gained unanimous agreement among the three major political parties to be incorporated into the Constitution in July of that year, marking a major milestone in the JRF's pursuit of judicial reform.

However, constitutionalization was only the first step—what exactly did the Judicial Yuan's budget look like after it compiled its new independent budget for the first time? Believing this was well worth a deep examination, the JRF proceeded to launch a comprehensive overall health check of the budget.

In 1998, the JRF's "Judicial Budget Group" conducted a comprehensive health check of the central government's judicial budget for fiscal year 1999 (July 1, 1998, to June 30, 1999), conducting in-depth analyses from multiple perspectives:

On March 24, 1998, the Judicial Budget Group formally presented the "Health Check Report on the Judicial Yuan's Expenditure Budget under the Central Government General Budget for Fiscal Year 1997," clearly highlighting four major deficiencies:

• ①
  Top-heavy budget compilation: Excessive administrative expenses at the top, while grassroots judicial operations lacked resources.
• ②
  Improper staffing allocations: Budgets for judicial assistants and legal officers were pre-allocated before the relevant laws were amended and passed; it was recommended that these related budgets be frozen.
• ③
  Profligate new construction projects: Official dormitories had a high vacancy rate and summary courts proved ineffective, yet hardware construction budgets continued to be poured into them.
• ④
  Failure to implement judicial reform projects: Matters requested in the previous year's supplementary budget resolutions—such as "live electronic media broadcasting of Constitutional Court sessions" and "placing judges' nameplates on courtroom benches"—were completely unimplemented.