KMT says firms have right to privacy during Legislature investigations

Taipei, Aug. 7 (CNA) The Kuomintang's (KMT) legislative caucus and its attorney on Tuesday sought to assure the Constitutional Court that private enterprises would have the right to appeal to the administrative court before any punishments for withholding information were imposed.

The issue was brought up during the court's oral arguments by Justice Ju Fu-meei (朱富美), one of the 15 justices presiding over a case raised by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus and the DPP-affiliated petitioners in a bid to reject the amendments to government oversight laws.

The amendments, pushed through by opposition KMT and Taiwan People's Party lawmakers, give the Legislature much broader investigative powers, including the power to hold hearings.

Individuals or entities in the private sector are subject to repeated fines of up to NT$100,000 (US$3,059) if they refuse to attend hearings or provide information when asked to do so by the Legislature, or if they present false information, according to the amendments.

The Constitutional Court has already issued an injunction that halted enforcement of some of the revisions, including those regarding investigative powers.

At the court, Ju first described the protections for individuals and businesses required to provide documents in a legislative investigation as "scarce" under the updated laws, which she said lacked measures to protect confidential communications and trade secrets.

She then asked if it would be possible for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) or other tech firms in Taiwan to be punished for withholding information because they wanted to protect trade secrets.

Ju also questioned if the Legislature's requests for access to information were equivalent to court orders.

In response, attorney Yeh Ching-Yuan (葉慶元), who represented the KMT caucus in the case, called the question "premature," suggesting it was not "appropriate" for the justice to seek to "make a judgment on the laws based on an abstract situation before any real controversy has emerged."

Yeh said that the decision on whether to punish those refusing to hand over personal or corporate data would be made on the Legislative floor following a majority vote, citing the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan's Power.

Under the law, individuals can refuse to provide testimony or submit documents to the Legislature on the grounds that the information is private and unrelated to public affairs, following approval from the head of the investigation.

In defense of the amendments, Yeh said the Legislature would be unlikely to ignore existing laws protecting the freedom of private communications and privacy when deliberating imposing penalties.

Speaking in the same vein, KMT Legislator Wu Tsung-hsien (吳宗憲) said those hit with fines for declining to provide information requested by the Legislature could appeal to the administrative court.

Wu argued that the revisions contained sufficient mechanisms to protect private data from leaking, such as restricting who can access it and how it is accessed.

In addition, KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) said the amendments allowed the Legislature to request information from the private sector, similar to government agencies asking the public to hand over information.

Countering the KMT side, professor Chen Hsing-an (陳信安), who spoke on behalf of the Executive Yuan, said their arguments reflected the lack of discussion of the amendments during the legislative process.

The Executive Yuan is one of the DPP-affiliated petitioners, in addition to President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) and the Control Yuan.

Chen, a law professor at the National Chung Hsing University, contended that lawmakers should consider various possibilities when crafting legislation.

Meanwhile, expert witness Paul Dung (董保城) noted that there ought to be punitive measures imposed on those who refused to cooperate in the Legislature's investigations.

Otherwise, the amendments granting the Legislature broader investigative powers will "effectively bear no effect," said Dung, who serves as a professor at Soochow University's School of Law.

Another expert witness Chang Wen-chen (張文貞) said that while she agreed with Dung regarding handing down punitive measures, she suggested such power be given to "a third party."

Chang, a law professor at National Taiwan University, used the U.S. congressional hearings as an example and said that if a request by Congress was denied, the case would be forwarded to judicial authorities.