Key takeaways from Constitutional Court's oral arguments on Aug. 6

Taipei, Aug. 8 (CNA) The Constitutional Court heard arguments on a case regarding the constitutionality of amendments to government oversight laws on Tuesday.

CNA has compiled the key takeaways from the arguments as follows.

Dispute on deliberation leading up to amendments' passage

 ◆ Unconstitutional arguments:

- The Legislature did not do a roll call before voting on the bills nor did it use the combined approval voting.

- The amendments were approved on the legislative floor by a show of hands without a record of individual votes.

 ◆ Constitutional arguments:

- The amendments were voted on article by article and the number of participating lawmakers had been counted 36 times.

- Electronic and recorded voting methods are not the "default" rules.

Dispute on requiring the president to address the Legislature and then take questions

 ◆ Unconstitutional argument:

- There is no constitutional basis for requiring the president's presence at the Legislature to give a state the nation address periodically and then field questions from the floor.

 ◆ Constitutional arguments:

- The Legislature may hear a state of the nation address by the president, as per the Constitution's additional articles.

- How the address and the interpellation should be conducted can be determined through cross-party negotiations, according to the amendments.

Dispute on granting Legislature broader investigative powers

 ◆ Unconstitutional arguments:

- Investigating crimes should be the responsibility of judicial authorities while holding public officials accountable for their misconduct should fall to the Control Yuan.

- It makes no sense for the Legislature to probe into corruption cases and then pass the results to either the Judicial Yuan or the Control Yuan for further action.

 ◆ Constitutional arguments:

- The Legislature, upon being accorded with investigative powers, does not usurp the power of the Control Yuan.

- The Legislature's investigation seeks to look into major incidents and hold those involved accountable for their political responsibility, while the Control Yuan is tasked with investigating individuals and disclosing the legal status of suspect actions.

Dispute on clause banning "reserve interpellation"

 ◆ Unconstitutional arguments:

- This clause lacks clarity and contravenes the principle of proportionality enshrined in the Constitution.

- Public officials who simply try to clarify questions raised by lawmakers during legislative meetings might be considered to violate this clause.

 ◆ Constitutional argument:

- The same wording has been adopted in the Taipei City Council's rules of procedure (Article 33) since the 2000s.

Dispute on clause outlawing "contempt" of Legislature

 ◆ Unconstitutional arguments:

- Legal clarity and due process are absent in the clause stipulating what constitutes contempt of Legislature, which also conflicts with the principle of proportionality.

- Public officials whose remarks in legislative meetings are deemed inappropriate should take administrative or political responsibility, but such behavior should not be considered an offense.

 ◆ Constitutional arguments:

- If public officials are not held accountable for dishonesty, lawmakers may struggle to obtain complete information when reviewing budgets and bills.

- Implementing punitive measures ensures that public officials provide truthful information.