TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — The Kuomintang (KMT) pressed the government for clarification on the constitutional court’s new criteria for the death penalty.

During a press conference, KMT Legislators Niu Hsu-ting (牛煦庭) and Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) questioned whether the constitutional court’s ruling effectively abolishes the death penalty while maintaining its constitutionality. Lo urged Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) to provide a special report on the Extraordinary Appeal filed by 37 death row inmates and the Ministry of Justice’s criteria for carrying out the death penalty, per UDN.

Lo sought clarification on whether Cho believed the constitutional court’s new criteria maintained the death penalty. Citing public support for capital punishment, Niu asked if justices, appointed by a legislature dominated by the Democratic Progressive Party, are diverging from public opinion.

KMT Legislator Wu Tsung-hsien (吳宗憲) posed a series of questions to Minister of Justice Chen Ming-chien (鄭銘謙) during a questioning session. He inquired about the implications if an original death penalty sentence were overturned in subsequent trials, per CNA.

Chen said the government would release a prisoner only if found innocent upon retrial, emphasizing that the Ministry of Justice would request the court to detain the individual in the interim. Wu also asked whether time served on death row would count toward the new sentence if a death row inmate’s punishment were changed to life imprisonment or a specific prison term.

Chen noted that, since a death row inmate's punishment has not been carried out, that time would not count toward the new sentence. He added that the Ministry of Justice would oppose any legislative amendments to the criminal code for this purpose.

On Sept. 24, KMT Legislator Hsieh Lung-chieh (謝龍介) raised similar concerns, asking Chen about the implications of the constitutional court’s new criteria on original sentencing. Chen indicated that outcomes would vary on a case-by-case basis, with possibilities for retrials or revocations of original sentences, per CNA.

Hsieh further questioned whether an inmate held for more than 20 years, who did not receive a retrial and whose original sentencing lacked a unanimous decision—two criteria set by the constitutional court—would be eligible for parole. Chen replied that an inmate must serve at least 25 years to qualify for parole, but added that this does not guarantee entitlement.

Cho intervened, stating that there is a difference between deprivation of liberty and deprivation of life and that justices set a higher standard for eligibility regarding the latter.