Scholars question constitutional court's right to rule on death penalty

Taipei, April 23 (CNA) Taiwan's constitutional court debated the constitutionality of the death penalty on Tuesday, but some scholars questioned the authority of the grand justices to determine the fate of the current system.

The debate at the Judicial Yuan in Taipei was part of a constitutional court review on whether the death penalty is constitutional, a case brought by 37 prisoners currently on death row.

Cheng Shan-yin (鄭善印), an honorary professor in the Department of Law at the Kainan University, said during the debate that the abolition of the death penalty should be left to the discretion of the legislative body or decided by the public through a referendum.

It is "dangerous" to allow "a few people" to decide the issue, added Cheng, who was among six scholars taking part in the event to share their viewpoints, referring to the 12 grand justices at the constitutional court reviewing the case.

Jimmy Hsu (許家馨), a research professor at the Institutum Iurisprudentiae of Academia Sinica, expressed a similar view, saying the fundamental rights in any society should be decided collectively by the public.

Public discourse on whether Taiwan should move toward a society without the death penalty has largely been absent until Tuesday's debate, Hsu said, arguing that so far, those for and against the current system have been "talking past each other."

Their comments were in line with the arguments presented by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), which is defending the constitutionality of the death penalty in the case.

Whether the country should abolish the death penalty is "discussable" but the issue, given its highly contested nature in society, should be decided by the legislative branch to better "reflect public opinion," said Chien Mei-hui (簡美慧), deputy head of the MOJ's Department of Prosecutorial Affairs.

However, Yen Chueh-an (顏厥安), a law professor at National Taiwan University, argued that the authority of grand justices is derived from the people, as they are nominated by the president and approved by lawmakers, both of whom are elected by people.

In contrast, Yen went on, judges who sentence those who commit crimes to death lack such legitimacy.

Huang Cheng-yi (黃丞儀), a research professor at the Institutum Iurisprudentiae of Academia Sinica, maintained that judicial reviews do not need to take into consideration the stance of the legislative body.

The death penalty is "a legacy of imperial rule" applied over the years to oppress individuals but at the same time a person's identity and status can affect whether or not they receive the death penalty, Huang said.

A republic should guarantee equality to the people and their freedom to take part in society, he added.

According to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, a majority of the justices presiding over the case have to rule in favor of the 37 petitioners for the death penalty to be overturned.

With three grand justices having recused themselves from proceedings, the remaining 12 are expected to make a judgement three months after the debate at the earliest.

In the event that six grand justices uphold the death penalty as constitutional and the other six deem it otherwise, the grand justices will convene further discussions until a judgement is reached.