Let the Discretionary Fund Battle End Here

Let the Discretionary Fund Battle End Here
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 16, 2007

Ma Ying-jeou has been found not guilty in the first instance of the Discretionary Fund case. Can we call a halt to this pointless confrontation and say "This ends here"? Judging by the reaction from the prosecutor, the Green camp, and above all the Hsieh camp, apparently not. Apparently this was merely the first round. Far more pointless confrontation lies ahead of us.

If the prosecutor appeals the verdict and demands a retrial in the High Court, the Republic of China's court of second instance, the real flash point will be its verdict early next year. In which case Ma Ying-jeou and the Kuomintang truly can afford to be happy for only one day. Because this amounts to advance notification that from the end of this year until the election, the only issue is going to be the Ma Ying-jeou Discretionary Fund issue. The legislative election will revolve endlessly around this issue. So will the presidential election. The term "pointless confrontation" will be inadequate to describe Taiwan's political scene.

To flex their political muscles or even to save face, the prosecutors have abundant motive for demanding an appeal. Especially public prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen, who must confront the barrage of accusations within the court's written judgment. He has reacted, calling it "unacceptable" and "inconsiderate." If he fails to appeal it might be perceived as an admission of defeat. Unfortunately if Hou Kuan-jen insists on filing an appeal, the resulting dispute is going to be far more than a "pointless confrontation." Hou Kuan-jen may not give a damn about outside objections to the human rights violations he committed during his prosecution of the case. But he has no choice but to consider the potential repercussions of his obstinate demand for a retrial.

Between Ma Ying-jeou's indictment and the court of first instance's written judgment, a truth has emerged. Hou Kuan-jen's legal opinion on the Discretionary Fund Case differs from the Ministry of Justice's, It differs from fellow public prosecutor Eric Chen's, It differs from Tainan Public Prosecutor Chen Ming-chin's. It differs from presiding judge Tsai Shou-hsun's. Those who differ with Hou Kuan-jen differ from each other only in minor details. In short, Hou Kuan-jen is alone in his opinion. But so far the Ministry of Justice and the High Court Prosecutor's Office have made no effort to reach a consensus on the legal status of the Discretionary Fund. In other words, Hou Kuan-jen is clinging to his idiosyncratic opinion in the hope that a High Court judge will share his viewpoint. If this happens, local prosecutors in the north and south will hold conflicting opinions. High Court prosecutors will hold conflicting opinions. Judges will hold conflicting opinions. Different officials using Discretionary Funds in the same manner could receive diametrically opposite indictments from different prosecutors, and even diametrically opposite written judgments from different judges. If this doesn't constitute chaos, what does? If the ROC judicial system permits this scenario to materialize, then the curses uttered by Hsieh camp legislator Wang Shih-chien, Hsieh Hsing-ni, and Lin Kuo-ching will come true.

The public has seen the relish with which Hou Kuan-jen prosecuted the Ma Ying-jeou Discretionary Fund Case. It has seen his obvious reluctance to prosecute the Green Princes of the DPP. The court of first instance has handed down a verdict in the Ma Ying-jeou Discretionary Fund case. Hou Kuan-jen has declared that it is inapplicable to the Green Princes of the DPP. He has declared that "the case is already far along, and involved parties will be subpoenaed in the near future." In other words, if the not guilty verdict in the Ma Ying-jeou Discretionary Fund case doesn't let the Four Green Princes of the DPP off the hook, the general public will most assuredly fix on two points. Point One: Will Hou Kuan-jen prosecute Ma Ying-jeou full force in the second instance? Will he attempt to bring the prosecution of the Four Green Princes of the DPP up to speed? How will he explain himself if the gap between his handling of the Four Green Princes of the DPP and his handling of Ma Ying-jeou grows ever wider? Point Two: Will he use the same reasoning while prosecuting the Four Green Princes of the DPP? Will he prosecute the Four Green Princes of the DPP over the question of receipts? Will he prosecute them with the same eagerness he prosecuted Ma Ying-jeou? Will he prosecute them for embezzlement, abuse of authority, and betray of public trust? Only Hou Kuan-jen knows.

The Green camp naturally wants to appeal Ma Ying-jeou's Discretionary Fund case. Theoretically an appeal will hobble Ma Ying-jeou during next year's election, the way it has over the past year. If only Ma Ying-jeou could be found guilty just before the election, they could win without a fight. Unfortunately this is wishful thinking. What if the second verdict finds Ma Ying-jeou innocent, just as before? Are they going to curse the judiciary again? If the Green Princes of the DPP are indicted for embezzlement or betrayal of public trust, won't all the mud the Green camp has flung at Ma Ying-jeou wind up on the Green Princes of the DPP? They will find out soon enough.

Naturally Ma Ying-jeou wants this pointless confrontation to end. No defendant found not guilty in his first trial wants a retrial. But even supposing Ma's characterization of the proceedings as "pointless confrontation" is overstated, appealing the Discretionary Fund case will only land everyone in the same hot water. If that happens, no one will be able to gloss over the problem with euphemisms. Therefore, a word of warning to the public prosecutors. The issue is not about semantics, but real world consequences. Let the Discretionary Fund battle end here.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.08.16
是該讓特別費的紛擾「到此為止」了
中時社論

馬英九特別費案一審的無罪宣判，真的能讓所有的「虛耗」就這麼「到此為止」嗎？看看檢方的即時反應，再看看綠營，特別是謝系人馬的即時反應，用常識都可以判斷，這場「虛耗」或許才算剛結束第一回合，更慘烈的「虛耗」恐怕還在後頭呢！

如果檢方上訴二審勢在必行，按照某些論者所研判的時間表，明年初的二審判決才是真正決戰點，那麼馬英九與國民黨確實只須高興一天就夠了，因為那樣等於預告，從今年底到明年初的選舉，還是只剩下「馬英九特別費案」一個議題，立委選舉將繞著它爭吵不休，總統選舉也只根據它做主軸，屆時台灣政壇的景況，何只是「虛耗」兩字所能形容？

沒錯，為了職權行使需要，甚至就算為討回面子，檢方都有理由會選擇上訴二審，特別是侯寬仁檢察官面對判決書中對他的所有指責，明顯做出「不能接受」的反應，甚至直指其「不夠厚道」，若是就此放棄上訴豈不形同認輸？問題在於，侯寬仁若是執意上訴二審，後續所可能引發的爭議，恐怕比「虛耗」還嚴重，侯寬仁可以不理會外界對他在偵辦過程中，種種違反人權作為的質疑，但他卻不能不顧及他執意挺進二審後的其它負面效應。

從檢方對馬英九特別費案的起訴書到法官的一審判決書，不難得出一個清楚的結論：侯寬仁對首長特別費的見解，不僅與法務部研究的結論不同，與他在特偵組同僚陳瑞仁檢察官的見解不同，也與南檢陳明進檢察官的見解不同，如今再加上與地院承審法官蔡守訓的見解也不同，而與侯寬仁不同的所有見解大致都「大同小異」，幾乎只有侯一人在「獨排眾議」。而到現在為止，法務部與高檢署都無意要「統一見解」。換言之，如果要讓侯寬仁帶著他對特別費的「獨到見解」闖進二審，無異是期待能在高院的二審中，恰好碰上一位欣賞侯寬仁獨到見解的法官，如果這個預期真能實現，那就等於說法界對首長特別費的見解，不僅是南北檢不同調、院檢不同調、法院系統也出現不同調，同樣都是首長特別費案，既可以出現立論南轅北轍的兩份起訴書，也可以出現各自表述的兩份判決書，這不是天下大亂嗎？台灣司法若是容許這般場景出現，那麼謝系立委王世堅、謝欣霓與林國慶等人的咀咒，就全部都成真了。

其次，在過去一年中，大家都目睹了侯寬仁檢察官在偵辦馬英九特別費案上所展現的「效率」，也親歷了他對偵辦其它綠天王特別費進度上的「緩慢」。如今馬英九特別費案的一審判決結果出爐了，侯寬仁明白表示其不適用於其它綠天王，還表示「偵辦已成熟，近期將陸續傳喚當事人到案說明」；換言之，馬英九特別費案的判決結果，如果並未能讓綠營四天王的特別費案解套，那麼接下來社會大眾肯定會盯緊兩個焦點：一個焦點是，侯寬仁未來究竟是針對馬英九的二審上全力「拚進度」，還是在偵辦四位綠天王上趕緊「補進度」？如果兩者的進度落差越來越大，他給的說法會是什麼？第二個焦點是，他是否也會用他對特別費一貫的「獨到見解」，細追四大天王「以領據核銷特別費流向」的部分？甚至以與馬英九一樣的偵辦效率，不惜以貪汙、侵占、背信等連續犯來起訴綠營四天王？這個問題的答案，恐怕也只有侯寬仁一個人能回答。

綠營上下目前的主流見解，當然都是力主要將馬英九的特別費案上訴到二審。理論上這好像可以像過去一年一樣，讓特別費案繼續如絆馬索般將馬英九套到明年大選前，如果能剛好在大選前夕讓馬英九被判有罪，那等於就是不戰而勝了！問題在於這僅只是最樂觀的預期，如果二審判決馬英九依舊是無罪呢？再凶狠的咀咒一次司法嗎？如果任何一位綠天王也被依貪汙或背信起訴，綠營當初所有對馬英九的語言糟蹋，是否可以整套加以適用在綠天王身上？這個問題可能馬上就得面臨了。

馬英九盼望能將一切虛耗能「到此為止」，當然有他個人自私的考量，誰會願意打贏了一審還要進入二審？問題是就算撇開「虛耗」這種高調不論，真的將特別費案的戰線拉到二審，只會讓各方都全面陷入困局，屆時可不是一句「歷史共業」就能解套了。因而寄語特偵組的檢察官們，不為「虛耗」，就只為實際考量，能不能就讓特別費的紛擾「到此為止」吧！