In recent developments, the Taiwan Constitutional Court has resumed its operations following a significant ruling that deemed a 2024 amendment to the Constitutional Procedure Act unconstitutional. This ruling ended almost a year-long paralysis caused by the amendment, which had temporarily halted the court’s activities due to an inability to meet the newly stipulated quorum requirements. The amendment required at least ten sitting judges for a law to be declared unconstitutional, with nine needing to concur. However, due to the expiration of terms for seven judges and the legislature’s blockade of new appointments by the President, the court was left with only eight judges, precluding its functionality.
The court’s ruling was backed by five judges, who argued that both the legislative amendment and the legislature’s refusal to affirm presidential judicial appointments undermined judicial independence and paralyzed the judiciary’s core functions. In a marked division, three judges abstained, maintaining that without the legally required quorum, the court had no power to adjudicate. They cited constitutional compliance as imperative, even as criticisms were directed at procedural improprieties in the legislative process involving lack of transparency and bypassing of established voting protocols. This schism underscores growing tensions around constitutional governance in Taiwan.
Despite attempts from certain quarters, such as Taiwan People’s Party’s Huang Kuo-chang, to argue the court’s lack of authority in the absence of adequate judge participation, the ruling interpreted the continuous refusal of these judges to adjudicate as akin to recusal, thus circumventing the quorum issue under the original act. This legal interpretation not only enables the Constitutional Court to function but also highlights deeper challenges within Taiwan’s political framework.
The nuanced challenges faced by Taiwan’s constitutional framework have been further complicated by an ongoing political crisis. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s failure to secure a legislative majority has incited significant political unrest. In a related event earlier this month, Executive Premier Cho Jung-tai, backed by President Lai Ching-te, refused to ratify an amendment concerning governmental budget allocations, accusing the legislative majority of overstepping its bounds and undermining democratic accountability. The legislative response has been swift, signaling intentions to pursue impeachment proceedings against both the president and the premier.
This constitutional conundrum is not an isolated incident in Taiwan’s recent history. Past instances, such as protests against procedural justice violations and the legislative majority’s refusal to negotiate, have exacerbated the political climate. As noted by JURIST, protests in May 2024 drew 30,000 people outside the parliament in opposition against the legislative majority, underscoring public discontent with perceived breaches of democratic norms.
The resumption of the Constitutional Court’s operations thus represents a critical juncture for Taiwan, not merely resolving immediate procedural halts but also illustrating deeper fractures in the island’s governance structures. As Taiwan navigates these complex constitutional waters, the impact of these legal and political dynamics will be closely watched by domestic and international observers alike.