Chen Tsung-ming's Wounds: Not Impeachment, But Loss of Public Trust

Chen Tsung-ming's Wounds: Not Impeachment, But Loss of Public Trust
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 20, 2010

The Control Yuan has impeached Prosecutor General Chen Tsung-ming by a vote of eight to three. It has also demanded by a vote of seven to three that the Ministry of Justice bring the matter to a swift resolution. The Control Yuan has gotten tough. Chen Tsung-ming has responded by tendering his resignation.
The first Prosecutor General under the new system has been impeached. This is deeply regrettable, not just for Chen Tsung-ming personally, but for the entire judicial system. Ever since Chen Tsung-ming's role and behavior became the subject of a major scandal, we have urged him to be smart and consider resigning. Given his protestations of innocence, his words and deeds clearly run counter to public expectations. He may feel personally aggrieved. But as the highest ranking official within the prosecutorial system, he must boldly resign. He must do so to uphold justice and to maintain respect and trust in the administration of justice. Only by doing so, can he maintain his own reputation and minimize the damage done to the judicial system. Instead Chen Tsung-ming dragged his feet so long he forced the Control Yuan to impeach him. On the one hand, Chen Tsung-ming set a negative example for judicial ethics. On the other hand, he left huge scars on the nation's system of justice.

Chen Tsung-ming has provoked a great deal of controversy. He may not have left traces of illegal conduct. That is why the Control Yuan's reasons for impeachment did not include references to illegal conduct, but rather to negligence. For example, the impeachment points to Chen Tsung-ming and Shih Mao-ling's frequent meetings at Huang Fang-yen's private residence, and to his self-contradictory testimony when questioned by the Legislative Yuan. He even personally visited a building contractor named Tsai, a witness in the Chen Shui-bian corruption case, at Tsai's office. The Control Yuan concluded that his conduct was suspicious, but difficult to prove illegal. Therefore they characterized his conduct merely as "dereliction of duty." In fact, Chen provoked all manner of controversy. For example, during the Discretionary Fund controversy, he failed to preside over a unified opinion. He sat idly by as conflicting standards of justice prevailed in different jurisdictions. The political tides turned. But this inconsistency remained under the purview of an independent prosecution. Control Yuan members were unhappy with the situation. But getting to the bottom of the matter proved difficult. Chen Tsung-ming and Huang Fang-yen were suspected of leaking information. Suspicions linger. But this is not something the Control Yuan can comment on. It lacked proof that Chen Tsung-ming engaged in illegal conduct. But characterizing Chen's words and deeds as "dereliction of duty" was fully consistent with public perceptions. Chen Tsung-ming should not have met in Huang Fang-yen's private residence, just as another man's underwear must not show up in the Queen's chambers. It is not necessary to talk about whether there is evidence of illegal conduct. The fact is Chen Tsung-ming must take full responsibility for his unethical conduct.

Chen Tsung-ming Chan has tendered his resignation. This was a wise decision. He must not be so oblivious as to continue stonewalling, to the point where he is impeached. His allegation that the Control Yuan "fabricated facts and maliciously defamed him" will only provoke even greater public disappointment. It can only exacerbate the damage done to his personal reputation. The job of Prosecutor General involves important duties and responsibilities. A Prosecutor General must maintain public respect and public trust in the administration of justice. Chen Tsung-ming has already lost the public trust. That much is abundantly clear. Chen Tsung-ming landed himself in his current plight. He would do well to ask himself whether as Prosecutor General, he still commands the people's respect and trust.

The Prosecutor General is a unique cabinet position. No one within the administrative system can force him to resign. Therefore, anyone who assumes this position must measure himself against the highest standards for professional conduct. Chen Tsung-ming's given name means "smart." But Chen Tsung-ming lacked the smarts to know when to fold. Instead, he has landed himself in his current pickle. He severely damaged the image of the justice system. Chen Tsung-ming could have minimized the damage to himself and to the nation by making a moral choice. Instead he forced the Control Yuan to impeach him. This harmed Chen Tsung-ming. It also left a massive scar on "the first Prosecutor General" under the new system.

Chen Tsung-ming's words and deeds have provoked intense public indignation. As mentioned earlier, Chen Tsung-ming has lost the public trust. The public has even concluded that if it could not rid itself of Chen Tsung-ming, then the entire government would remain riddled with problems. Chen Tsung-ming did not know enough to resign. He forced the Control Yuan to impeach him. Chen Tsung-ming apparently failed to realize that if he was unable to maintain his status as a moral paragon, he would have no leg to stand on. In fact, Chen Tsung-ming's real wound was not inflicted by the Control Yuan when it impeached him. His real wound was inflicted upon him by himself, when he lost the public's respect and trust.

The Chen Tsung-ming case is a major blow to the justice system. The lesson is that for administrators of justice, public respect and trust are the ne plus ultra. The loss of that respect and trust renders the administration of justice meaningless.

陳聰明的重傷不在彈劾 而在失去社會信任
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.01.20 03:13 am

監察院以八比三通過彈劾檢察總長陳聰明，又以七比四通過要求法務部須為「急速救濟」的附帶決議。監察院出重手，陳聰明以主動辭職回應。

首位新制檢察總長竟然走到被彈劾的地步，這不只是陳聰明個人的遺憾，更是司法體制的不幸。自陳聰明的角色表現成為社會重大爭議以來，我們一向主張，他應當明智處理自己的進退問題；即使自認無辜，但畢竟種種言行明顯已違社會期待，他作為檢察體系最高首長，為維護司法清譽及國人對司法的尊敬與信任，縱然百般委屈，亦當果斷辭職。倘係如此，一則自己可以保有識大體的社會評價，另則亦使司法威信減低損害。然而，陳聰明卻將形勢拖到被彈劾的下場，一方面陳聰明使自己在司法倫理上成為惡例，另一方面亦在國家司法史上留下重創的傷痕。

陳聰明引發議論的言行甚多，但未必留下什麼違法的跡證；因此，監察院的彈劾理由，並未朝「違法」部分發展，而是往「失職」方面追究。比如說，彈劾理由指陳聰明與施茂林出入黃芳彥私宅聚會，又在立法院答詢時言詞反覆，甚至親自到已具證人身分的蔡姓建商辦公室；在這些情節中，監院調查即使認為有「犯罪嫌疑」，但都不易朝「違法」發展，而僅認定皆屬「失職」。其實，陳聰明引發的種種議論，並非僅此而已。譬如，在特別費風潮期間，未能主持統一見解，坐視司法標準不一，政潮翻騰；唯此間出入，畢竟屬於檢察部門的獨立權責，監察委員縱覺不妥，亦未便深究。再如，陳聰明與黃芳彥過從如此，有否洩密及縱放的嫌疑；這雖是一個問號，但也非監察院所能論斷。總之，或許未曾掌握陳聰明「違法」的證據，但若謂其言行已屬「失職」，應當是符合社會公議的評價。陳聰明不應出現在黃芳彥的私宅聚會，有如在皇后的寢宮裡不應出現其他男子的底衫。不必談有否「違法」的證據，陳聰明皆必須在職位倫理上負起完全的責任。

陳聰明主動提出辭呈，應是明智之舉。唯若走到被彈劾的地步，不知自省，而謂監察院「捏造事實，惡意攻訐」，恐將更使國人失望，而形同又對自己在人格名譽的傷口上撒鹽；畢竟，檢察總長這個職位最重要的職守及責任，就是維持社會對司法的尊敬與信任，而陳聰明之已失社會信任，則是一個明顯而強固的社會共識。陳聰明處今日情勢，不妨自問：作為檢察總長，我還能維持國人對我的尊敬與信任嗎？

檢察總長是一個非常特別的特任官，在行政體系內無人能使之去職；所以，擔任此一職位者，在專業倫理表現上更應有高標準的自我要求。但是，陳聰明卻常涉瓜田李下，引發蜚短流長；而陳聰明未有急流勇退的「聰明」，非但使自己深陷泥淖，也重傷了司法的清譽與形象。這場風潮，原本可因陳聰明個人將之視作「倫理抉擇」，以辭退來減低自己及國家的損傷；如今卻是動用了彈劾，傷了陳聰明，也為「首任檢察總長」的新制留下一個大傷疤。

陳聰明可議的言行，激發了等比例的強烈民憤。如前所述，陳聰明已失社會信任；民怨甚至認為，若不能處分陳聰明，整個國家體制都有問題；但陳聰明卻不知以辭退自處，而必欲將情勢逼到監院彈劾的田地。陳聰明似乎不知，檢察總長若不能維持其倫理角色，即已再無立足的餘地。其實，陳聰明的真正重傷，不在監院彈劾，而是在他失去了社會的尊敬與信任。

陳聰明案是司法界的重大傷痛。若欲從中記取教訓，即應知社會的尊敬與信任，是司法人所以頂天立地的憑藉。倘若失去了尊敬與信任，司法即失去意義。