Taiwan’s recent National Review Meeting on its human rights commitments has cast a spotlight on concerns surrounding the operation of its Constitutional Court. This comes in the aftermath of a significant interruption in the court’s function, linked to contentious legislative amendments.
The Constitutional Court, crucial to Taiwan’s separation of powers, faced a hiatus from December 2024 to December 2025. During this period, the framework governing its operations was deemed unconstitutional by a reduced panel of five justices. The Court’s Judgment No. 1 of Year 114 (2025) addressed the 2024 amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, finding them procedurally flawed. This decision, while hailed by some as essential in safeguarding judicial independence, has not been without controversy.
The amendments demanded a fixed quorum of 10 justices, a move seen by some as a mechanism to enhance legitimacy in constitutional judgments. However, critics warned of potential deadlock, which could render the court inoperative if justices’ terms end without timely appointments. This risk became palpable when the court, with just eight sitting justices, found itself unable to function after October 2024.
Efforts by President Lai of the Democratic Progressive Party to fill these vacancies faced resistance primarily from the Kuomintang and Taiwan People’s Party, intensifying political divides. These parties challenged the nominations as politically skewed, while the ruling party accused them of obstructing judicial processes. This impasse has been exacerbated by the broader political polarization within Taiwanese society, reflecting a worrisome trend of deepening partisanship.
The situation in Taiwan has drawn parallels with international instances of democratic backsliding, seen in several global contexts where legislative measures purportedly aimed at reinforcing democratic norms instead appear to weaken institutional checks and balances.
Despite the court’s revival with Judgment No. 1, challenges remain. Four of the remaining justices are due for retirement by 2027, posing a potential threat of a repeat crisis. Observers are questioning whether Taiwan’s civil society and political framework can withstand such ongoing strains. As constitutional mechanisms serve as vital guardians against democratic erosion, Taiwan’s current predicament offers a poignant reflection on the fragility of such institutions.