TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — Presidential Office Secretary-General Pan Meng-an (潘孟安) criticized the opposition during a committee meeting Thursday over its past treatment of the government’s Constitutional Court justice nominees.
KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) questioned Pan about why President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) has not nominated additional Constitutional Court justices, noting that about half of the seats remain vacant, per UDN. Lai submitted slates of nominees in August 2024 and March 2025, but all were rejected by the legislature, including one nominee opposed by members of the DPP caucus.
Weng argued that Lai should keep nominating justices, as required under the Constitution, rather than allowing Hsieh Ming-yan (謝銘洋) to continue serving as acting Judicial Yuan president, per Liberty Times. Pan responded by asking whether Lai should continue presenting nominees after the legislature rejected 14 qualified candidates.
Weng said Taiwan’s legal community includes more than 14 qualified candidates. Pan countered that what he described as legislative “bullying” toward judicial nominees would discourage qualified candidates from accepting nominations. He added that new nominees would be announced in due time.
After the meeting, Pan clarified that his remarks referred to the opposition’s treatment of judicial nominees, not whether Lai would submit another round of nominations, per CNA. He emphasized that nominating justices remains the president’s constitutional prerogative.
After the legislature repeatedly rejected Constitutional Court nominees, the court briefly faced deadlock following an opposition-backed amendment raising quorum requirements. The issue exposed divisions within the court over how to respond.
Four justices argued that the court’s authority derives directly from the Constitution and cannot be restricted by statute. Three other justices maintained that while the court’s authority is constitutional, its organization and procedures are still governed by statute, making the amendment binding. One justice initially declined to side with either position.
Hundreds of NGOs voiced support for the majority position, arguing the amendment should be repealed to restore the court’s functioning. The Constitutional Court ultimately struck down the amendment with the participation of five justices, despite falling short of the pre-amendment quorum requirement.
The court argued that the three justices who declined to participate in the case should not be counted toward the number of incumbent justices required for a quorum. Although the ruling restored the court’s operations, it also highlighted deep internal divisions and drew criticism from the ROC Constitutional Law Society.
In its first ruling after resuming operations, the court defended its position, reiterating that justices who recuse themselves should not count toward the total number of incumbent justices for quorum purposes.
