President's State of the Nation Address: Both the Administration and the Legislature Can Win

President's State of the Nation Address:
Both the Administration and the Legislature Can Win
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 9, 2012

Summary: A State of the Nation Address will enable the public to judge whether the president's policies are consistent with the constitution. President Ma should be able to respond constructively. Ruling and opposition party legislators in the halls of parliament must understand the meaning of "affairs of state." They must not dwell on trivialities beneath consideration, or engage in Blue vs. Green partisan bickering. Otherwise, they will be incapable of checking President Ma Ying-jeou's charisma. They will undermine the image of the Legislative Yuan. They will do themselves more harm than good.

Full Text below:

Is the Legislative Yuan about to invite President Ma Ying-jeou to issue a State of the Nation Address? Both the ruling and opposition parties see this is as a good thing. The only question is whether legislators will have the opportunity to "interrogate" him. Will the President be treated like the Premier? Will he be required to respond to interrogation by legislators? The People First Party has proposed a compromise. Representatives from the Legislature will put forth "recommendations" just as the National Assembly did in the past. The President will offer a "consolidated reply." Can the president and the ruling and opposition parties accept such a compromise? That will depend on the success or failure of their negotiations. Before the President can visit the Legislative Yuan and report on the state of the nation, certain constitutional and procedural issues must be considered. The President and the Legislative Yuan may wish to establish an historical precedent. But they must think before acting.

The Presidential Office's initial response was that everything should be in accord with the constitution. It is waiting for the Legislative Yuan to act. According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, as amended, the relevant provisions are quite simple. They involve only one line: "When the Legislative Yuan convenes each year, it must listen to the President's State of the Nation Address." In other words, it is not the duty of the President to report to the Legislative Yuan on the State of the Nation. Its responsibilities to the Legislative Yuan are different from the Executive Yuan's. Reporting to the Legislative Yuan or being interrogated by the Legislative Yuan is a constitutional duty for the Premier and his cabinet. He may not be excused from this duty except under special circumstances. He must first obtain permission from the Legislative Yuan. He may not fudge, evade, or refuse to appear.

Before the National Assembly was abolished, the provisions of the constitution, as amended, were relatively clear. "When the National Assembly convenes, it is required to listen to the President's State of the Nation Address, consult on national affairs, and offer recommendations." Is the president obligated to respond? The constitution, as amended, contains no hard and fast stipulations. But when former President Lee Teng-hui offered a comprehensive response, and responded to the National Assembly, most of the public expressed approval.

After the National Assembly was abolished, its authority was integrated with the authority of the Legislative Yuan. The constitution, as amended, was simplified. But the "Powers of the Legislative Yuan Law" was made more explicit. Procedurally, it went in two directions. One. At least one fourth of the Legislature was required to introduce a bill, after which the rules committee would add it to the agenda. The "National Security Guidelines" would respond to the President's State of the Nation Address. Two. The President would be required to consult with the Legislative Yuan on major national policies, in accordance with his job responsibilities.

Would legislators "interrogate" him? The "Legislative Yuan Duties Enforcement Act" states that once the President makes his State of the Nation Address legislators must question him on any unclear parts of his address. The duration of their questioning, the number of questioners, the order in which they speak, their party affiliation, and other issues would be determined through party caucus consultations. Moreover, the law clearly stipulates that "the foregoing questioning by Legislators, with the consent of the President, will be incorporated into a supplementary report. "

Based on the above constitution and the legal provisions, the President's State of the Nation Address could be issued on his own initiative, or at the behest of others. President Ma is apparently waiting for the Legislative Yuan to make the first move. Will the Legislative Yuan and the President adopt a question and answer format? Actually, this is not up for debate. First, the legislators will ask questions. They will not "interrogate" the President. Secondly, should the comprehensive legislative question and answer session be compiled into a supplementary report? That will depend on whether the President agrees. In other words, whether the legislators will hold a question and answer session will be decided by the Legislative Yuan. But whether the president will respond will be up to him. Also, any question and answer session would be entirely different from an interrogation of the Premier.

After direct presidential elections were instituted. the constitution clearly stipulated that State of the Nation Addresses would be issued. But none have, ever. During former President Chen Shui-bian's term, he considered visiting the Legislative Yuan to issue a State of the Nation Address. But the Blue Camp majority had no intention of granting him this "honor." They added that if the President did come, but refused to be questioned, the session would be meaningless. The legislative caucus would not agree to a visit. The DPP meanwhile, cited the constitution. They insisted that for the President to be subjected to interrogation, it would undermine the Republic of China's constitutional framework.

Times have changed. The ruling and opposition parties have switched places. But the constitution has not changed. Ruling and opposition party legislators are clear about the conditions that must be met before the President can issue a State of the Nation Address. This is probably why DPP legislator Wu Ping-jui suggested inviting the President to issue a State of the Nation Address, but did not demand that the President respond, The legislators have no basis on which to make such a demand. Other DPP legislators who made sarcastic remarks should be ignored.

We look forward to the establishment of a constitutional precedent. We look forward to more mature interaction between the ruling and opposition parties. We look forward to rebuilding the image of the legislature. We look forward to the President visiting the Legislative Yuan and issuing a State of the Nation Address. After all, every four years we hold a presidential election. It consumes enormous human and material resources, and exacts a high cost on society. If we can implement an annual State of the Nation Address, it would underscore the significance of the presidential election. But given current grandstanding during question and answer sessions in the Legislative Yuan, is it difficult to be optimistic about the prospects of a State of the Nation Address.

The Legislative Yuan is the nation's highest elective body. A State of the Nation Address will enable the public to judge whether the president's policies are consistent with the constitution. President Ma should be able to respond constructively. More importantly, it will enable the public to evaluate the president's performance, as well as the performance of legislators. Ruling and opposition party legislators in the halls of parliament must understand the meaning of "affairs of state." They must not dwell on trivialities beneath consideration, or engage in Blue vs. Green partisan bickering. Otherwise, they will be incapable of checking President Ma Ying-jeou's charisma. They will undermine the image of the Legislative Yuan. They will do themselves more harm than good.

總統國情報告 府院可共締雙贏
2012-02-09中國時報

立法院即將就是否邀請馬英九總統提出國情報告一事進行協商，朝野對此都認為是好事一樁，唯一的考量是到底立委能否提出「質詢」，而總統是否要如行政院長一般，對立委的質詢逐一答覆？親民黨團提出折衷案，比照當年國民大會，由代表們提出「建言」，並由總統「綜合答覆」，此案是否為總統與朝野黨團都能接受，還要看協商的狀況。然總統赴立法院國是報告仍有合憲與合理層面可供討論，不論是意圖創造歷史評價的馬總統或立法院，都應該更深一層思考。

總統府目前初步反應是一切依憲而行，靜待立法院決議。根據中華民國憲法增修條文，相關規定極為簡單，只有一句「立法院於每年集會時，得聽取總統國情報告」，換言之，向立法院提出國情報告並非總統的義務，迥然不同於行政院向立法院負責，不論是施政報告或備詢，都是閣揆與眾閣員們的憲法義務，非特殊需要未經立法院同意前，都不得蒙混、迴避、甚至拒絕前往。

國民大會未廢之前，憲法增修條文的規定還比較清楚，「國民大會集會時，得聽取總統國情報告，並檢討國是，提出建言。」至於總統答不答，並未強硬規範，但當年前總統李登輝採取綜合答覆的方式，滿足了國代需求，也得到多數民意好評。

國民大會廢了之後，國代這款職權隨同併到了立法院，增修條文雖然簡化之，但《立法院職權行使法》則有相應更明確的規定。程序上，有兩條路走：第一，四分之一以上立委提議並經院會決議後，由程序委員會排定議程，就「國家安全大政方計」聽取總統國情報告；第二，總統得就其職權相關的國家大政方針，得咨請立法院同意後進行。

至於立委是否「質詢」，在《立法院職權行使法》中也有如下規定：立法委員於總統國情報告完畢後，得就報告不明瞭處，提出問題；其發言時間、人數、順序、政黨比例等事項，由黨團協商決定。而且，明定「就前項委員發言，經總統同意時，得綜合再做補充報告」。

就上述憲與法的規範，總統國情報告可出於主動，也可出於被動。目前，馬總統顯然被動等立法院出招，但就立委與總統間是否採取一問一答形式進行，其實沒什麼商量空間，第一，立委是「提出問題」，而非「質詢」；第二，要不要綜合立委發問再做補充報告？端視總統同意與否。換言之，立委問不問，立法院決定了就算數，但總統答不答，可得尊重總統的決定，而且絕非如閣揆備詢般一問一答。

總統直選之後，國情報告雖明定於憲法之中，卻從未實現過。前總統陳水扁任內曾經想過赴立法院提出國情報告，但當時席次居多數的藍營立委無意給總統這項「殊榮」，同時提出如果總統要來不接受詢答就毫無意義，黨團不會同意。民進黨則以憲法為後盾，認為總統備詢是插手摧毀台灣憲政體制之舉。

時空背景縱有轉換，朝野易位，但憲法並未變動，所有可考慮、應考慮的條件和前提，朝野立委都了然於胸。相信這也是為什麼提案邀請總統國情報告的民進黨立委吳秉睿會表明不堅持總統答覆的原因，因為立委沒有堅持的道理，至於其他民進黨立委講任何風涼話，都沒有意義。

從建立憲政慣例與更成熟的朝野互動，乃至重建國會形象，總統赴立法院國情報告，可以樂觀期待。畢竟每四年一次總統大選，耗費巨大人力物力和社會成本，如果真能落實每年一次國情報告，也有助於落實總統大選的實質意義；但是，以目前的國會一問一答、譁眾取寵式的詢答品質，又很難讓人對國情報告的詢答寄予厚望。

立法院代表國家最高民意機關，透過國情報告讓國人更了解總統的國家大政方針合乎目前的憲政設計，相信馬總統可以寬闊對應；更重要的是，國人不但看總統的表現，也要看國會的表現，凡是站上國會議事殿堂發問的朝野立委要理解「國家大政」的內涵，不能圍繞著檔次未達水準的問題、或藍綠選舉的政治恩怨胡扯，否則既壓制不了馬英九總統的人氣，徒然讓國會形象再輸一城，那就得不償失了。