Hsu Tzong-li’s
nomination unconstitutional: judges
By Alison
Hsiao / Staff reporter
Shilin District
Court Chief Judge Hung Ying-hua (洪英花) yesterday questioned
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) nomination of former
grand justice Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) as Judicial Yuan
president, saying a re-assumption of the position would contravene the
Constitution.
At a news
conference “to warn against nepotism in the nation’s judiciary,” Hung said that
while Hsu upholds that the Constitution only stipulates that candidates cannot
hold the position for two consecutive terms and does not explicitly prohibit
re-assumption, “according to official documents regarding the
Constitution-amending process [in 1997], what the Constitution means by ‘no
consecutive terms’ is precisely ‘once in a lifetime.’”
The draft
amendment used the examples of Germany and Italy to support the change that
called for the injunction against consecutive terms, “and both German and
Italian grand justices, with terms of 12 years and nine years respectively, are
not allowed to be appointed for consecutive terms, which means no
reappointments,” she said.
Hung also cited
then-National Assembly member Thomas Peng (彭錦鵬) as saying during the amendment process that the reasoning behind
the ban of serving consecutive terms was to “rule out the possibility of grand
justices harboring the desire of reappointment, which would adversely affects
their work of Constitution interpretation.”
Hung also quoted
then-National Assembly member Yang Min-hua (楊敏華) as saying that the impossibility of consecutive terms would
“prevent [grand justices] from hoping that they could enjoy a lifetime of
prestige and prosperity, so that they would interpret the Constitution
according to their true consciences.”
Keelung District
Court Judge Chen Chih-hsiang (陳志祥) seconded Hung’s
argument, saying that the 1997 constitutional amendments clearly state that:
“Each grand justice of the Judicial Yuan shall serve a term of eight years,
independent of the order of appointment to office, and shall not serve
consecutive terms.”
Chen said the fact
that “independent of the order of appointment” means that there should be no
reappointment whatsoever regardless of whether there terms are consecutive or
not.
Even if
re-assumption of the office is practicable, “shouldn’t the interval be at least
eight years instead of Hsu’s five years?” Chen asked, adding: “If five years is
okay, how about five days?”
The third issue
raised by Chen was that insofar as Hsu also acknowledged that there are
concerns involving constitutionality over his reappointment, “the doubt of how
[Hsu] could guide judicial reforms [pledged by the president] in the capacity
of Judicial Yuan president therefore arises.”
This story has been viewed 1625 times.
沒有留言:
張貼留言