TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — A coalition of civil society groups and legal professionals voiced support for a Constitutional Court ruling, saying it restores the court’s ability to function and safeguards Taiwan’s system of constitutional democracy.

Twenty NGOs and 300 prominent lawyers issued a joint statement on Sunday backing a decision handed down Friday by five grand justices of the Constitutional Court, which ruled an amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act unconstitutional, per Liberty Times.

The ruling drew strong criticism from the KMT legislative caucus, which pledged to file a criminal complaint on Monday. The KMT accused the justices of abusing power and dereliction of duty, arguing that they failed to implement an amendment requiring a minimum of 10 justices to participate in constitutional deliberations, with at least nine agreeing to reach a decision.

In their statement, the NGOs and lawyers said the ruling marked the first step toward returning to the right path of constitutional democracy. They expressed hope that continued public discussion would help resolve the current stalemate, in which opposition parties have blocked nominations needed to meet the newly mandated quorum.

The joint statement said tensions between Taiwan’s executive and legislative branches have intensified over the past year, while the grand justices, tasked with acting as neutral arbiters, have been unable to issue rulings. As a result, the judiciary has been weakened in its role of checking and balancing the other branches of government, the groups said.

They added that numerous cases involving the protection of fundamental rights have gone unheard, undermining the constitutional ideal of safeguarding basic freedoms.

The statement affirmed that the ruling by the five justices restores the Constitutional Court’s ability to resolve disputes and protect basic human rights. In their decision, the justices applied the standard of “significant procedural flaws,” holding that legislation passed in violation of principles of openness, transparency, and adequate deliberation should be declared unconstitutional and invalid.

According to the statement, this standard compels legislators to refrain from abusing majority power and ensures that the legislative process adheres to full disclosure, communication, and thorough debate. The ruling also reaffirmed that justices are bound only by the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, clearly delineating the boundary between judicial and legislative authority.

The groups said this clarification would prevent a recurrence of a situation in which the Constitutional Court could be paralyzed by legislative action.

The statement also criticized the prolonged absence of three justices from deliberation meetings over the past year, as well as their decision to issue public statements through unofficial channels, saying such actions had damaged public trust in the court. The groups likened the situation to those justices effectively recusing themselves.

They argued that, under the circumstances, the number of justices properly participating in the case was five, and that under the previous law, a two-thirds majority (four justices) was sufficient. With five justices present, the court was able to conduct a lawful trial in accordance with Article 30, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act. As such, they said, Constitutional Judgment No. 1 of 2025 is constitutional and valid.

Separately, the Judicial Reform Foundation (民間司改會) also issued a statement supporting the ruling, saying it prevents the legislature from undermining the judiciary, restores the court’s role in checking legislative and executive abuses, and upholds the principle of separation of powers. The foundation urged the public and legal professionals to stand behind the judgment.