Constitutional Court hears arguments on government oversight law case

Taipei, Aug. 6 (CNA) The Constitutional Court on Tuesday heard arguments on a case regarding the constitutionality of amendments to government oversight laws, with expert witnesses disagreeing on whether the laws' legislative process was so flawed it should be declared void by the court.

The deliberation that led up to the passage of the amendments, which took effect on June 26, was majorly flawed because lawmakers approved the revisions by raising their hands and without a record of individual votes, expert witness Chang Wen-chen (張文貞) said.

Chang, a law professor at National Taiwan University, cited a constitutional ruling in 2000 as saying that such a voting method "contravened the principle of openness and transparency" and constituted "manifest and gross procedural flaws."

In the 2000 ruling (Interpretation No.499), the court deemed the constitutional amendments adopted a year prior by the now-defunct National Assembly unconstitutional due in part to the use of secret ballots during the deliberation.

The NTU professor also argued that the oversight laws should be considered "quasi-constitutional statutes" since they "directly affected" the responsibilities of top government bodies stipulated in the Constitution.

Chang's comments were made during the Constitutional Court's oral arguments on the case brought by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus, the Cabinet, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) and the Control Yuan in a bid to reject the oversight laws.

The amendments to the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan's Power and the Criminal Code were pushed through by opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People's Party (TPP) lawmakers at the end of May. Together they form a majority in the Legislature.

Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court has already issued an injunction that halted enforcement of some revisions, including those that would have given legislators much broader investigative powers.

In refuting Chang's arguments, another expert witness Ed Huang (黃銘輝) said the oversight laws did not apply the "vigorous" views adopted in the 2000 ruling and that the Constitutional Court should instead consider the 1994 ruling (Interpretation No.342) regarding the Organic Act of the National Security Council in its current review.

That ruling highlighted the court's adherence to the "principle of legislative autonomy," according to which the court should respect the Legislature as operating under its own rules and procedures, said Huang, an associate professor from the Department of Law of the National Taipei University.

The ruling also said the court should intervene only in the event of major flaws in the legislative process, defined as those that "can be determined … without investigation into the facts," the professor added.

Meanwhile, TPP legislative caucus whip Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) said although the oversight laws were passed by lawmakers raising their hands in approval, they remained legitimate according to the Legislative Yuan's rules of procedure.

Huang Kuo-chang added that neither electronic nor recorded voting was a "default rule" in the legislative process.

However, attorney Chen Peng-kwang (陳鵬光) representing the DPP caucus insisted that electronic and recorded voting had been adopted in the legislative process "by convention" for the last three decades.

Chen noted that the passage of the oversight amendments marked an exception because Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) violated long-standing convention and disregarded the principle of openness and transparency.

The oral arguments, which lasted until 5 p.m., also touched upon updated measures that expand the Legislature's investigative powers and require the president to address the Legislature periodically and then take questions.

The case is being presided over by 15 justices, who were all appointed by former President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the DPP.

The approval of at least eight justices is required for any of the amendments to be annulled, according to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act.

The court should render a ruling within three months after the conclusion of oral arguments, but the deadline can be pushed back by two months if necessary.