Lawyers March in Taipei to Protest Constitutional Court Bill
On Saturday, over 100 lawyers gathered in Taipei to protest a controversial amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act that critics say could severely undermine the operations of Taiwan’s Constitutional Court. The demonstration, organized by a coalition of legal professionals, drew attention to the bill’s potential impact on the judiciary’s ability to rule on constitutional matters.
The protest, which took place in front of the Legislative Yuan and along Xiangyang Street, was a response to the amendment bill introduced by the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) party. The bill seeks to increase the number of justices required to preside over a case and raises the threshold for ruling on constitutional issues, a move critics argue will make the Constitutional Court less effective and more vulnerable to political interference.
What is the Proposed Amendment?
The proposed amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act would raise the threshold for Constitutional Court rulings in Taiwan. Under the bill, at least 10 out of 15 justices must be present for a case to be heard, and a ruling would require support from at least two-thirds of the justices (or 10 votes). This contrasts with the current system, which only requires a majority of justices for a ruling to be passed.
Critics, including many in the legal profession, argue that such a requirement would make it significantly more difficult for the Constitutional Court to reach rulings, thereby crippling the court’s operations. They warn that this could lead to a backlog of cases and make it harder for ordinary citizens to seek justice when they believe their constitutional rights are being violated.
Lawyer Jacob Lin Speaks Out Against the Bill
Jacob Lin (林俊宏), a prominent lawyer and one of the key organizers of Saturday’s march, led the charge against the amendment. At a press conference before the protest, Lin explained that the bill would restrict access to justice for Taiwanese citizens and harm the integrity of the separation of powers.
“We believe this bill is an attempt to disrupt the balance of power in Taiwan’s democracy. By making it more difficult for the Constitutional Court to rule on key cases, the government will essentially silence the court,” Lin said.
According to Lin, the bill would make it harder for the Constitutional Court to effectively address critical issues, especially those involving human rights violations and government overreach. He emphasized that the bill would be detrimental to Taiwan’s democracy by limiting citizens’ access to justice when their rights are at stake.
Public Support for the Protest
Saturday’s march attracted a significant crowd, including over 300 lawyers and more than 2,000 supporters. The protesters chanted slogans in opposition to the amendment and called for the protection of the people’s rights and the preservation of the independence of the judiciary.
The demonstration also featured speeches by prominent figures in Taiwan’s legal community, including former Constitutional Court Justice Huang Hung-hsia (黃虹霞). In her speech, Huang strongly opposed the amendment, stating that it would compromise the court’s ability to serve the public. She vowed to vote the amendment unconstitutional if it were to be passed.
Huang stressed the importance of maintaining the balance of powers in Taiwan’s democratic system, noting that the Constitutional Court plays a crucial role in defending the rights of the people.
Opposition to the Bill: KMT’s Arguments
While the protestors argue that the amendment would weaken judicial independence, KMT lawmaker Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), the main sponsor of the bill, defended the proposed changes. Weng stated that the new threshold was in line with international standards and would ensure that a broad consensus was reached before making major constitutional decisions.
In response, Jacob Lin noted that while other countries may have similar thresholds, they also have safeguards in place to ensure that the Constitutional Court remains operational even in the absence of a full panel of justices. For instance, Germany allows outgoing justices to temporarily remain in office to maintain a quorum. Lin argued that Taiwan’s bill lacked such mechanisms, making it vulnerable to political interference.
Key Points from the Protest
| Point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Proposed Amendment | Raises the number of justices required for a ruling to 10/15. |
| Opposition Argument | Critics claim it will cripple the Constitutional Court’s ability to function. |
| Lawyers’ Protest | Over 100 lawyers and 2,000 supporters marched in Taipei. |
| Key Speaker | Jacob Lin and former justice Huang Hung-hsia spoke against the bill. |
| KMT’s Justification | The bill aims to bring Taiwan in line with international models of constitutional courts. |
| International Models | Other countries like Germany have safeguards not included in Taiwan’s bill. |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: Why are lawyers protesting the proposed amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act?
A1: Lawyers argue that the amendment would make it significantly harder for the Constitutional Court to make rulings, potentially crippling its ability to protect citizens’ rights and uphold the separation of powers.
Q2: What changes does the proposed amendment introduce to the Constitutional Court’s ruling process?
A2: The amendment would require at least 10 out of 15 justices to be present to hear a case, and a two-thirds majority (10 votes) to pass a ruling, compared to the current system, which only requires a majority.
Q3: How do the protesters view the KMT’s justification for the amendment?
A3: Protesters believe the KMT’s justification of aligning Taiwan with international standards is misleading, pointing out that other countries have safeguards to ensure the Constitutional Court remains functional, which Taiwan’s bill does not include.
Q4: How many people participated in the protest?
A4: The protest attracted over 2,000 participants, including 300 lawyers who marched and rallied against the amendment.
Q5: What did former justice Huang Hung-hsia say about the bill?
A5: Huang Hung-hsia stated that she would consider the amendment unconstitutional if it were passed, emphasizing the need for judicial independence and the protection of citizens’ rights.
