Court tells Legislature to reach agreement over president's address

Taipei, Aug. 6 (CNA) Constitutional Court justices on Tuesday asked the Legislature's representatives to consider deleting an amended clause regarding the president's national address being delivered in the Legislature and to reconcile with the petitioners given it had been agreed there would be no penalty for noncompliance.

Grand Justice Jan Sheng-lin (詹森林) questioned whether there was a possibility of "reaching a reconciliation" with the ruling party over this requirement without resorting to involving the court.

The Legislature's representatives, who were all from the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People's Party (TPP), responded that the legislation was meant to normalize the process of the president delivering his state of the nation address at the Legislature and answering questions from lawmakers.

The Presidential Office and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus previously said the newly amended law made the president's presence at the Legislature compulsory and was therefore unconstitutional because the president is not accountable to lawmakers, according to the country's constitutional framework.

Before being amended, the law stated the Legislature "could" listen to the president's address.

The way the new version is written and additional clauses prompted the ruling party to voice discontent over its belief that the president's presence was now compulsory.

TPP caucus whip Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) previously said in court that "there is nothing we can do if the president does not come [to deliver the address to the Legislature]," which means the legislation is just advice, Jan noted.

"The two sides should be able to resolve this without involving the court," Jan added.

Grand Justice Tsai Tsai-chen (蔡彩貞) also questioned the point of the amendments if there was no penalty clause for noncompliance.

Huang said there was no legal impact if the president refuses to comply, but that there would be political consequences because their actions would look bad to the public.

KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) said the new legislation is an "internal regulation" for the Legislature, "so we have regulations regarding inviting the president to attend in the future."

"We wish to set up a mechanism to normalize [the president's address being delivered in the Legislature]," Weng said.

Lawyer Yeh Ching-Yuan (葉慶元), the attorney for the Legislature's representatives, however, maintained the position that the president was "obligated" to deliver the address in the Legislature.

He added that the Legislature's right [to listen to the address] was written in Article 4-3 of the Additional Articles in the Republic of China's constitution.

He stressed that while the country has a semi-parliamentary system, "the president [rather than the premier] has now become the de facto executive head of the government."

President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) just set up three committees related to major national policies that report to the Presidential Office -- the National Climate Change Response Committee, the Whole-of-Society Defense Resilience Committee, and the Healthy Taiwan Promotion Committee, Yeh pointed out.

This is a move that aims to influence the direction of the Executive Yuan, he stressed, asking, "why should we not be allowed to ask him to explain his decisions?"

The president's attendance and address to the Legislature is one of the controversial amendments aiming to strengthen the legislative branch's oversight of the executive branch that is being debated in the Constitutional Court.

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.

The oral arguments, which lasted until 5 p.m. and involved expert witnesses debating whether the legislative process of certain laws was so flawed that they should be declared void, were presided over by 15 justices.

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.