TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — Taiwan’s Constitutional Court announced on Friday (July 12) that it will delay its ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment in the country. 

The court heard oral arguments on April 23 for and against the death penalty in Taiwan. Generally, rulings on constitutional issues must be made within three months of hearing oral arguments, but the justices have the right to delay them for up to two months, according to Article 26 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. 

With Friday’s announcement that the ruling will be delayed past the originally expected deadline of July 23, the court is now required to issue a ruling before Sept. 22, reported LTN. 

Kuomintang (KMT) lawmakers have expressed alarm that the court could abolish the death penalty, a move that would run counter to popular sentiment in Taiwan. Many argue that the death penalty is a legislative matter to be decided by lawmakers who represent the will of the public. 

Activists in favor of abolishing the death penalty argue the matter is within the purview of the Constitutional Court and should be decided by Taiwan’s highest judicial body.

There are currently 37 inmates on death row in Taiwan waiting for the court’s decision. Chief Justice Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) and six other justices are expected to leave the court in October. 

Given the timeline in which the court is obligated to make a ruling, the decision will be made with the court’s current composition, reported LTN. 

In related news, new draft amendments to laws governing Taiwan’s Constitutional Court have been introduced in the judiciary committee by KMT legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), reported Nikkei. If passed, the measures would force the Constitutional Court to make rulings with a majority of its complete 15-member panel, which is not currently required.

If the Constitutional Court loses seven justices in October, Weng’s amendments, if passed, could hobble the court. Given the length of the review process for appointing new justices, the proposed legislation could restrain the court’s ability to make rulings without a full 15-person bench.