EXPLAINER/Key takeaways from Constitutional Court ruling on legislative oversight amendments

Taipei, Oct. 28 (CNA) The Constitutional Court on Friday ruled most of the amendments passed by the Legislature related to legislative oversight of the executive branch of government earlier this year "unconstitutional" and took note of "flaws" in the process by which the revisions were adopted.

The ruling dealt a blow to opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People's Party (TPP) lawmakers, who used their combined majority in the Legislature to push through the amendments to the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan's Power and the Criminal Code on May 28.

CNA has laid out the key components of Friday's ruling and its implications:

On the Legislature's investigative powers

The Constitutional Court ruled against giving investigative committees formed by the Legislature the legal power to compel representatives of public or private entities to provide information.

According to the ruling, legislators can still set up committees to conduct investigations, but only into matters "significantly related to specific proposals" considered within the Legislature's purview as defined by the Constitution.

This means that two separate task forces established by lawmakers to investigate controversial cases concerning the central government's egg procurement program and its granting of a broadcast license to Mirror TV were automatically disbanded.

Individuals can voluntarily cooperate with these investigative committees. However, the court found that the proposed amendments' specific penalties for refusing to provide information infringe upon constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to decline appearing as a witness.

While the court agreed that the Legislature could impose penalties for those who refuse to appear before a hearing without a "legitimate reason," it ruled the amendments' suggested procedures for exercising this function unconstitutional.

On the measure regarding "Contempt of the Legislature"

The court ruled against punitive measures against officials for providing false responses or testimony at the Legislature, reversing an amendment in the Criminal Code that would have imposed up to one year of imprisonment or a fine of up to NT$200,000 (US$6,234).

While acknowledging that officials should be held responsible for giving false statements, the court said "criminal punishments" for such acts violated the principle of proportionality enshrined in the Constitution.

On the deliberation leading up to the amendments' passage

The court ruled the deliberation leading up to the passage of the law revisions constitutional.

According to the ruling, while there were "flaws" in the legislative process, such a suboptimal situation did not deviate completely from "the principles of openness and transparency" as stipulated in the Constitution.

The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus argued that the deliberation leading up to the passage of the amendments was unconstitutional because there was a lack of "substantive" and "article-by-article" discussions.

The KMT and TPP, on the other hand, maintained that the legislative process did not contravene the Legislative Yuan's rules of procedures.

On compelling the president to address the Legislature

The court struck down most of the measures obliging the president to give a state of the nation address on the legislative floor and respond "immediately or within a specified timeframe" to questions fielded by lawmakers.

The court said the president was "under no obligation" to give a state of the nation address at the Legislature, citing Article 4 of the Constitution's additional articles, saying such arrangements should be decided through negotiations between the president and the lawmaking body.

Who brought the case to the Constitutional Court?

The case was brought to court by the DPP legislative caucus, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德), the Executive Yuan, and the Control Yuan nearly four months ago following failed attempts to reject the amendments in the Legislature.

Oral arguments were held at the Constitutional Court in early August, where the DPP-led petitioners and their legal representatives were pitted against their counterparts from the KMT and TPP.

Presiding over the case, 15 sitting justices -- all of whom were nominated by former President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the DPP -- issued the ruling with broad agreement on the constitutionality of the amendments.