Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Fu Kun-chi/Facebook
A LEGAL PROPOSAL from KMT legislator Weng Hsiao-ling would change the number of justices on the Constitutional Court required for the court to make decisions. The proposal has the clear aim of preventing the Constitutional Court from functioning at a time in which the expansion of legislative powers sought by the KMT is under review, with regard to its constitutionality. Though the proposal from Weng has not proceeded further in the legislative process as of yet, it is to be seen if the idea recurs from the KMT going forward.
The current number of justices on the Constitutional Court is fifteen, with the terms of seven justices set to expire in October. The proposal would result in the Constitutional Court requiring ten justices in order to make rulings and form majority opinions.
The intent of the proposal seems relatively clear, then. If the KMT takes advantage of its current slim majority in the Legislative Yuan to block the confirmation of any justices, then the Constitutional Court will not be able to make a ruling on the new powers if there are fewer than ten justices. This would also be true regarding any of the other actions that the KMT is currently calling for but which have been accused of being unconstitutional, such as the infrastructure bill for eastern Taiwan pushed for by KMT caucus convener Fu Kun-chi.
The legislative powers sought by the KMT would grant new powers of investigation to legislators, allowing them to summon members of government, board members of companies, and private individuals for questioning. Fines or jail time could be imposed for failing to answer truthfully, with charges for an ill-defined charge termed “reverse questioning”, generally understood as speaking back when questioning.
Concerns were raised about the possibility of the KMT using the new powers to force the disclosure of military secrets or trade secrets. KMT legislators such as Ma Wen-chun, co-chair of the Legislative Yuan’s defense committee, have been accused of disclosing confidential secrets regarding Taiwan’s domestic submarine program to China and South Korea. It has also been raised that KMT lawmakers who have business investments in specific industries could use the powers to force disclosures of trade secrets from competitors. Civil society groups could likewise face questioning.
The Constitutional Court. Photo credit: Jiang/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0
Further angering the public was that the KMT tried to circumvent legislative oversight to push the news powers into law, circumventing committee review. As such, Taiwan saw large protest mobilizations on a scale not seen since the 2014 Sunflower Movement starting in May, termed the Bluebird Movement. Yet with the DPP legislative caucus, Lai administration, and Control Yuan seeking a constitutional interpretation on the new powers, arguments will be heard in August.
The new powers will likely be used to hold public show trials. This is already moving forward, with an investigative committee into the approval of Mirror TV for broadcast having been convened.
The KMT has sought to expand legislative power because of its current inability to win presidential elections, seeking to expand legislative power rather than simply waiting to craft a compelling political message to win the next presidential elections. As the KMT has sought these investigative powers, it has also called for the revival of the Special Investigation Division (SID) that previously was used against political enemies of the KMT such as former DPP president Chen Shui-bian and to subordinate the SID directly to legislative control, rather than the Ministry of Justice. Similarly, the KMT has called for placing the National Communications Commission under legislative control. The infrastructure bill called for by Fu Kun-chi would also funnel 15% of the national budget to local governments controlled by the KMT.
In this sense, the KMT’s actions have been termed a power grab by critics. When in the wake of the Bluebird Movement protests, there were calls to recall KMT legislators, the KMT responded by trying to raise the benchmark for recalls to be held, at one point attempting to once again circumvent committee review.
The KMT has generally sought to change laws and legal institutions that are not to its liking as part of this power grab, then, while granting as much power to the legislature as possible. It is improbable that such actions will not lead to blowback.