On the morning of December 24, the Legislative Yuan voted on the Judicial Yuan’s nomination of Justices. All three major political parties employed bloc voting tactics: the Kuomintang (KMT) rejected all seven nominees, the Taiwan People's Party (TPP) rejected six, and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rejected one. As a result, none of the seven Justice nominees achieved the required 57 votes—a majority of the 113 legislators—and were all rejected.
On December 20, when amendments to certain provisions of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act were passed, raising the threshold for Constitutional Court proceedings to require at least ten Justices to participate, concerns arose about whether the court could function effectively. These fears were contingent on the Legislative Yuan's ability to rationally exercise its Justice approval powers. Now, the Constitutional Court, tasked with safeguarding the Constitution, teeters on the brink of paralysis, which significantly undermines core judicial functions and endangers the system of separation of powers.
Recognizing the Constitutional Court’s Vital Role in Human Rights Protection
In Taiwan’s constitutional history, the dominance of executive power during authoritarian rule and extended martial law periods rendered freedom and equality mere illusions. The Constitutional Court Justices have played a pivotal role in advancing human rights in Taiwan by issuing interpretations and rulings that progressively implement relevant regulatory protections.
For example, cases assisted by the Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR) that mark crucial human rights milestones through Justice interpretations or Constitutional Court rulings include: Interpretation No. 584 (declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act restricting individuals with specific criminal records from driving taxis, thereby protecting the right to work), Interpretation No. 603 (ruling that mandatory fingerprinting for ID issuance violates the Constitution, establishing right of self-determination of information as a component of the right to privacy), Interpretation No. 718 (deeming parts of the Assembly and Parade Act as unconstitutional, affirming that spontaneous and urgent assemblies should not require prior approval), and Judgment No. 13 in 2022 (establishing individuals’ post-use control over the secondary use of health insurance data to protect privacy rights). Such rulings exemplify how the Constitutional Court provides critical relief for cases involving fundamental human rights and contributes to human-rights progress.
In addition to day-to-day advocacy efforts, marginalized groups also often rely on judicial remedies to raise public awareness of their struggles. The Constitutional Court plays a crucial role in such efforts, serving as the final line of defense for human rights protection. Related landmark cases include: Interpretation No. 365 (overturning the patriarchal bias in child custody laws under the Civil Code), Interpretation No. 807 (repealing restrictions on women’s night-shift work under the Labor Standards Act as unconstitutional), Interpretations No. 708 and No. 710 (ensuring the right to liberty of detained foreign nationals by setting detention duration limits), Interpretation No. 748 (legalizing same-sex marriage), and Judgments No. 4 and No. 17 in 2022 (affirming equal protection for Indigenous identity rights and other key human rights issues respectively) Through interpretations and rulings by the Justices, the Constitutional Court has brought substantive equality to isolated and vulnerable groups, transforming democratic ideals into practical realities. This distinction between democratic and authoritarian systems underscores the Court’s essential function as a guardian of human rights.
Stop Partisan Turf Wars, Return to Professionalism and Address the Constitutional Crisis
The voting results for Justice nominations demonstrate how political parties restricted their legislators’ autonomy through disciplinary measures, effectively nullifying the recent amendment to the Legislative Yuan Functioning Act that was intended to strengthen and formalize the review process of the nominees. The Justice nomination process, which should transcend partisan power struggles, ultimately devolved into a battle of wills between accusation of the President's failure to mediate partisan divisions beforehand and allegations of individual nominees’ criticisms of each party.
The DPP caucus had emphasized before the vote that the nomination process should adhere to professional standards, evaluating candidates based on their academic background, expertise, and international perspectives and urging rational deliberation from all parties. However, during the post-vote press conference, the caucus justified its rejection of nominee Ching-Yi Liu by citing her past criticisms of the DPP, including her remarks during the hearings about a current legislator’s controversial statement on using cell phone signal data to analyze the ages of protesters gathering outside the Legislative Yuan. Such reasoning contradicts the DPP’s earlier calls for professionalism, revealing a stubborn and egoistic partisan mindset that reduces substantive criticisms to a matter of political allegiance. This only reinforces suspicions that the DPP reviewed the nominees based on political considerations rather than merit. We emphasize that critiques and debates on public affairs are cornerstones of a healthy democracy. The DPP caucus’s actions stray from the democratic values that the party claims to uphold.
Meanwhile, the two opposition parties—KMT and TPP—fully demonstrated a “for the sake of opposition” approach during the voting process. Since the Constitutional Court’s 2024 ruling regarding the death penalty’s constitutionality (Judgment No. 8), the KMT has continuously exploited the death penalty issue to polarize society. During the nomination hearings, the KMT repeatedly demanded that nominees state their stance on the death penalty, disregarding the ethical standards of impartiality that Justices must uphold. By mobilizing populism, the KMT exhibits its inability and unwillingness to evaluate the nominees’ legal expertise. Even the one nominee who supported the death penalty was ultimately rejected, exposing the party’s lack of coherent principles beyond political opposition.
Similarly, the TPP aligned with the KMT in manipulating populist sentiment through the death penalty issue but failed to communicate clear principles for evaluating the nominees’ qualifications. This demonstrates how the party appropriates its legislative power of approval as a tool for political leverage. Worse, the TPP spearheaded the amendments to the Constitutional Litigation Act that raised operational thresholds for the Constitutional Court, requiring at least 10 Justices to participate in deliberations and 9 votes to declare a law unconstitutional. Even with a full bench of 15 Justices, these amendments would have severely hindered the Court’s functionality. The absurdity is further compounded by the fact that the amendments were rushed through the legislative process using procedural loopholes, denying the issue the thorough deliberation it deserved.
The review of Justice nominees should be based on individual merit. The behaviors of each political party in this process would discourage capable professionals from becoming public servants in the future. This outcome runs counter to the nation’s ideals of meritocratic governance and democratic values. While the rejection of all nominees is now an irreversible fact, we urge all parties across the political spectrum to remedy the situation. The immediate priority should be nominating a new slate of Justices to restore the Constitutional Court’s functionality. Following this, urgent discussions must be held to address the harm to Taiwan’s constitutional framework caused by the recent amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. It is critical to emphasize that prior to the amendments, the Constitutional Court operated effectively. The newly established thresholds for deliberation and ruling, coupled with the mass rejection of nominees, confirm widespread concerns that the amendments would incapacitate the Court. This raises serious questions about the constitutionality of the revised Act, warranting closer scrutiny and revision.
(Notes: Legislator Yi-Chuan Wang previously claimed on a talk show that telecommunications data could be used to analyze the attributes of crowds outside the Legislative Yuan and compare them to other gatherings. Regardless of the truthfulness of his claims, the referenced use of location data implicates issues of personal data exploitation beyond its stated purpose. The Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR) urges the relevant authorities, including telecommunications regulators, digital advertising supervisors, and political parties, to clarify current practices, legal justifications, and safeguards for data use, including mobile signal analysis and indoor positioning technologies. Despite the National Communications Commission (NCC) pledging to refine regulations in June, the Commission has yet to investigate or establish the legal basis for commercial use of personal data by telecom companies. This matter remains unresolved, as the NCC currently lacks the quorum required to make decisions following recent legislative amendments.)
Translated by: Jackson, Intern
Mandarin version ：https://www.tahr.org.tw/news/3621
