Premier defends refusal to enact spending plan, draws opposition ire

Taipei, Dec. 15 (CNA) Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) on Monday defended his unprecedented decision not to countersign amendments to the local revenue-sharing law passed by the Legislature, saying the Cabinet has exhausted all available constitutional remedies - a move that drew sharp criticism from opposition parties.

Cho made the remarks at a press conference, arguing that the Legislature's passage of the amended Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures violated constitutional principles, undermined the separation of powers and encroached on the executive branch's authority over budget formulation.

Cho said his decision to not countersign the amendments represents the executive's final means to correct what it considers legislative wrongdoing.

The amendments, passed by the opposition-controlled Legislative Yuan on Nov. 14 and upheld after a reconsideration motion was rejected on Dec. 5, would increase the share of central government revenue allocated to local governments. Under the Republic of China (Taiwan) Constitution, laws promulgated by the president require the premier's countersignature.

Although no premier in Taiwan's history has ever refused to countersign a law passed by the Legislature, Cho stressed that his decision did not amount to authoritarianism or executive overreach. He noted that the Legislature retains a constitutional check, as it can still initiate a no-confidence vote against the premier if it disagrees with the Cabinet's actions.

If a majority of legislators approve such a motion, Cho would be required to resign within 10 days and could request that President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) dissolve the Legislature and new elections be held.

Cho said the Legislature has repeatedly passed "controversial" bills, escalating tensions between the executive and legislative branches. He said he had met several times with Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and party caucuses, but those efforts failed to ease tensions.

Cho argued that the Legislature had become an "autocratic political branch" by expanding its authority to secure more funding, undermining the constitutional system. He added that if a no-confidence motion is proposed and passed, it would be his "badge of honor" for defending democracy.

Opposition parties on Monday strongly criticized Cho's move.

Kuomintang (KMT) Spokesman Niu Hsu-ting (牛煦庭) accused the executive branch of distorting the Constitution and refusing to respect a law passed by the democratically-elected legislative majority, warning that the decision undermined both the rule of law and parliamentary democracy in Taiwan.

He said the outcome of the recent mass legislative recall vote had once again confirmed the direction of public opinion, and urged the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to acknowledge the reality of being in the minority.

Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), chair of the smaller opposition Taiwan People's Party (TPP), echoed those concerns, calling it "the most serious trampling of democratic institutions."

Even during late President Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) authoritarian rule, he did not dare to use such a method to nullify laws passed by the Legislature, Huang said.

Meanwhile, the Presidential Office issued a statement on Monday, saying that President Lai had written annotations on the promulgation order, noting that the revisions could undermine fiscal sustainability.

The president wrote that the latest revisions would further weaken central finances, distort vertical and horizontal revenue allocations, hinder key policy implementation, and strain the government's ability to safeguard national security and respond to natural disasters, Presidential Office spokesperson Karen Kuo (郭雅慧) said in the statement.

The dispute highlights deepening tensions between Taiwan's DPP government and opposition-controlled Legislature, and underscores unresolved disagreements over constitutional interpretations, institutional checks and the balance of power in Taiwan's democratic system.

The Constitutional Court, which currently has only eight sitting judges, has been unable to operate since January 2025, when a legal revision took effect requiring a quorum of 10 grand justices to participate in deliberations and nine to rule on the constitutionality of cases brought before it.

The stalemate on Monday also raised questions about the fate of other amendments opposed by the government. Among them are amendments passed to pension laws that would raise pensions for retired civil servants and public school teachers, and end the 10-year period of pension cuts that began in 2018.

Government officials have warned that implementing such changes could accelerate the depletion of pension funds, forcing taxpayers to cover shortfalls years earlier than previously projected.