TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — The Constitutional Court issued its first ruling of the year on Friday amid controversy over legislative amendments that constrained its operations.
Five of the court’s eight active justices ruled on a case the court agreed to hear in 2023. The ruling included a lengthy explanation defending the court’s decision to resume hearing cases despite amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act passed by the legislature in December 2024.
Last month, Justices Shieh Ming-yan (謝銘洋), Lu Tai-lang (呂太郎), Tsai Tzung-jen (蔡宗珍), Chen Chung-wu (陳忠五), and Yu Po-hsiang (尤伯祥) declared that amendments requiring at least 10 justices to participate for the court to hear a case were unconstitutional. Before that ruling, the court had refrained from reviewing cases for about a year due to the amendments, per UDN.
The court said that as the nation’s highest judicial body, it has a constitutional obligation to continue hearing cases so the public can seek redress on legal matters. In Friday’s ruling, the five justices said the court may exclude recused justices when calculating whether quorum has been met.
Three justices did not participate in Friday’s ruling due to objections over the court’s authority to hear cases. Under the participating justices’ interpretation of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, the number of “existing justices” for quorum purposes was counted as five, and the ruling was deemed legally binding.
After the court nullified the amendments in December, KMT lawmakers filed a criminal complaint against the five justices for abuse of power. Meanwhile, several NGOs and legal professionals expressed support for the court’s decision to continue hearing cases despite the legislature’s amendments.
The case decided Friday was brought by an attorney in Pingtung and involved alleged violations of the Firearms, Ammunition, and Knives Control Act. The plaintiff challenged restrictions on defense attorneys’ ability to appeal a client’s detention when the defendant is unable to file an appeal in person.
The justices ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that defense attorneys have a constitutional right to file appeals on behalf of clients held incommunicado. The case was remanded to the Pingtung District Court for retrial.
