TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — A Constitutional Court ruling on Dec. 19 has drawn criticism from opposition parties over its decision to resume operations despite disputed quorum requirements.
Under amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act passed by the opposition, at least 10 justices must participate for the court to deliberate cases. With only eight active justices currently on the bench, the court had been effectively paralyzed until the Dec. 19 ruling.
In the decision, the court struck down the amendment and proceeded with five justices participating.
Kuomintang Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) said the ruling could allow the court to operate with as few as five of its eight active justices in the future, per Liberty Times. She also criticized the court for commenting on the legislative process, calling it an intrusion into legislative authority.
Taiwan People’s Party Chair Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) said that even if the five participating justices believed the amendment was unconstitutional, they still failed to meet the court’s previous quorum requirement, which required at least six justices, per CNA. He said the TPP would propose countermeasures in response to the ruling.
Soochow University Professor Su Tzu-chiao (蘇子喬) said the court acted under exceptional circumstances, lending the ruling additional legitimacy, per The Reporter. Soochow University Law School Professor Chang Chia-yin (張嘉尹) said that because three of the eight justices refused to participate in the proceedings, they could be treated as having recused themselves, allowing the court to meet quorum with five justices.
Chang added that the three justices who declined to participate should refrain from commenting publicly on the case, or alternatively take part in the proceedings if they believe procedural errors exist.
The ROC Constitutional Law Society said lowering the quorum undermines the legitimacy of the ruling and public trust in the Constitutional Court, per UDN. It warned that if the approach becomes normalized, it could weaken the president’s constitutional duty to appoint justices up to the legal maximum of 15.
The society said the ruling could eventually allow laws to be struck down with the participation of just one-third of the court, setting what it described as a dangerous precedent.
Academia Sinica researcher Huang Cheng-yi (黃丞儀) said the ruling highlights deep divisions within the court, per The Reporter. He said the majority opinion, written by Justice Lu Tai-lang (呂太郎), argued that extraordinary remedies were justified under extraordinary circumstances, while Justices Tsai Tzung-jen (蔡宗珍), Yang Hui-chin (楊惠欽), and Ju Fu-mei (朱富美) emphasized strict adherence to procedural rules.
Huang said Justice Tsai Tsai-chen (蔡彩貞), who cast the deciding vote, appeared closer in reasoning to the three non-participating justices. Although she did not agree with counting the three as having recused themselves, Huang said she ultimately supported reopening the court.
A Formosa poll released in December showed that 24.7% of respondents said they believe Constitutional Court justices can act independently, while 59.9% said they do not. Compared with a similar poll conducted in July, trust declined while distrust increased.
Distrust outweighed trust among Taiwan People’s Party, KMT, and KMT-leaning respondents, as well as independents. Among Democratic Progressive Party supporters, trust also declined and distrust increased compared with July, per Formosa.
The poll was conducted Dec. 22–24 among 1,083 respondents and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points at a 95% confidence level.
