China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 27, 2016
Executive Summary: What is done is done. Tsai Ing-wen has nominated pro-Taiwan independence oriented justices. The Legislative Yuan has approved them. They are about to take office. But judicial independence under our constitutional framework means that the justices are not under the President's control. A fuse has been buried, and may be lit any time. We must now see whether the justices themselves believe in constitutionalism.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen's nominees for chief justice, deputy chief justice, and other justices of the Supreme Court have been approved by the Legislative Yuan. For Tsai Ying-wen, approval of her Supreme Court nominees was easy. But the real difficulties lie ahead. These difficulties are not merely Tsai Ying-wen's difficulties. They are difficulties for the Republic of China, and for cross-Strait peace.
The first difficulty will be the justices' swearing-in. They must "Swear to be honest, to abide by the laws and regulations of the nation, to serve the nation, avoid waste, avoid abuse of personnel, and avoid corruption and bribery. If I violate my oath, I am willing to accept the harshest possible punishment”. According to the Oath Ordinance, this is the oath the justices must swear upon taking office.
To "abide by the laws and regulations of the nation” refers of course to the Constitution of the Republic of China. According to the preamble of the Constitution, the justices must serve "the Republic of China founded by Sun Yat-sen”. That refers to the Republic of China founded in 1911 following the revolution led by Sun Yat-sen. Its flag is the “blue sky, white sun, red earth” flag, per Article 6 of the Constitution. Its historical territory is defined by Article 4 of the Constitution. It is important to note that the oath is not merely a matter of conscience, but of the law. Under the law, an oath is not merely a pro forma ritual. According to Section 8 of the Oaths Ordinance, if one refuses to take the oath, one may not take office. According to Article 9, "Anyone who takes the oath only to violate it, shall be punished in accordance with the law."
Will Hsu Chung-li, Hsu Chi-hsiung, Huang Chao-yuan and other justices swear to abide by Sun Yat-sen's Constitution? Will they swear to serve the Republic of China? Or will they merely pay lip service to serve the nation, while secretly clinging to such notions as "special state-to-state relations", "not a normal nation" and "domestic consumption and nostalgia"?
The new justices who are sworn in may say one thing while thinking another. But even if they get away with this, they face an even tougher hurdle -- fears that the new justices will use constitutional interpretations to smuggle their personal Taiwan independence thinking into the Republic of China's constitutional framework. If the new justices abuse their power in this manner, three betrayals and one disaster will follow.
The first betrayal, needless to say, would be the betrayal of the Republic of China and its Constitution. The second betrayal, would be the betrayal of President Tsai Ying-wen, who nominated them. They would change the status quo that Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly pledged to maintain. The third betrayal would be exceeding the justices' authority, as noted in Interpretation No. 499. In 1999, the National Assembly voted to continue lining their own members' pockets. People demanded a constitutional interpretation. The justices' Interpretation No. 499 ruled that the National Assembly's amendment was unconstitutional. It said, "The fundamental value and purpose of the Constitution is the establishment of a basis for order. If amendment provisions change this, then the Constitutional has efffectively been destroyed, and the amendment provisions have lost any claim to legitimacy".
The Supreme Court justices' Interpretation No. 499 established limits to constitutional amendments. Even constitutional amendments have limits, never mind constitutional interpretations. What is the fundamental value and purpose of the Constitution?
Interpretation No. 499 refers to the “principle of a democratic republic", "the principle of national sovereignty", "the protection of people's rights" and "the principle of the separation of powers and checks and balances". Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of China refers to "historical territory", history, statehood, nation-building and sovereignty. These are even more fundamental in character.
The only way to overthrow the Constitution, is to author an entirely new constitution. Such are the limits of constitutional amendments. On this point, those in the know are concerned. They would remind Taiwan independence oriented justices. Do not abuse the process of constitutional interpretation. Do not use it to violate the Constitution. Do not use it to make substantive changes to the Republic of China's constitutional history and founding spirit, in order to covertly author a new constitution.
If the new justices are bent on extremism, they will bring about a catastrophe that crosses the line in the sand over to de jure independence. The CCP leadership must then bow to nationalist sentiment on the Mainland. This means disaster for Taiwan, disaster for both sides of the Strait, and disaster for the Chinese nation.
Faced with public doubts, the justices must be prudent during their swearing-in. They must publicly declare that they will never to use the constitutional interpretation process to smuggle their personal Taiwan independence ideology into the Republic of China constitutional framework, in order to implement de jure Taiwan independence. Also, when interpreting the Constitution, the justices must exercise restraint on major political issues that bear on the territory of the Republic of China, as per Constitutional Interpretation No. 328. They must have the restraint and wisdom not to abuse their judicial authority to interpret the Constitution.
What is done is done. Tsai Ing-wen has nominated pro-Taiwan independence oriented justices. The Legislative Yuan has approved them. They are about to take office. But judicial independence under our constitutional framework means that the justices are not under the President's control. A fuse has been buried, and may be lit any time. We must now see whether the justices themselves believe in constitutionalism.
拆除大法官推進法理台獨引信
2016/10/27 中國時報
蔡英文提名的司法院正副院長及大法官人選，全數獲得立法院同意過關。這一關對蔡英文、對獲得同意的大法官來說，都是輕易的一關。但真正的難關橫梗在前，不只是蔡英文的難關，更是中華民國的難關、兩岸和平的難關。
第一個將登場的「難關」，是大法官的「宣誓」兩難。「余誓以至誠，恪遵國家法令，盡忠職守，報效國家，不妄費公帑，不濫用人員，不營私舞弊，不受授賄賂。如違誓言，願受最嚴厲之處罰，謹誓。」依《宣誓條例》規定，這是大法官就職時必須宣讀的誓詞。
所謂「恪遵國家法令」，首遵的當然是《中華民國憲法》，大法官要報效的「國家」，依《中華民國憲法》前言「依據孫中山先生創立中華民國之遺教」，當然指的是1911年由國父孫中山先生領導革命所創建的中華民國，國旗為青天白日滿地紅（憲法第6條），有其從歷史傳承的固有疆域（憲法第4條）。要知道，宣誓不僅是「違不違背良心」的問題，在法律上，宣誓不是形式上的過場，依《宣誓條例》第8條，不依本宣誓條例規定宣誓者，均視同未就職。依第九條：「宣誓人如違背誓言，應依法從重處罰。」
面對宣誓這一關，許宗力、許志雄、黃昭元等大法官，要不要宣誓恪守這個依孫中山遺教創立的憲法？要不要宣誓報效「中華民國」？還是口裡誓遵憲法、誓報效國家，心裡取巧想的是「特殊國與國關係」、「不是正常國家」、「內部講講滿足鄉愁」？
即便新任大法官可以用「說一套、想一套」矇過宣誓這一關，但接下來是更嚴峻的關卡，也就是外界所擔心的，新任大法官會不會將個人的獨派思想與理念，透過釋憲，偷渡進中華民國的憲政體制？倘若新任大法官偏執而為，將帶來3個背叛、1個災難。
第1個背叛，無庸多言，就是背叛了《中華民國憲法》、背叛了中華民國。第2個背叛，背叛了提名他們的蔡英文總統，因為他們變更了蔡英文不斷宣示要維持的「現狀」。第3個背叛是踰越大法官的職務界限，這一點可以從釋字第499號加以闡明，1999年爆發國民大會代表延任自肥案，經申請釋憲，大法官會議達成釋字第499號解釋，認定國民大會代表的修憲違憲，解釋文中明言：「憲法中具有本質之重要性而為規範秩序存立之基礎者，如聽任修改條文予以變更，則憲法整體規範秩序將形同破毀，該修改之條文即失其應有之正當性。」
大法官釋字第499號解釋，就此確立了修憲的界限。如果修憲是有界限的，遑論釋憲。何謂「憲法中具有本質之重要性」，除了釋字第499號所例舉的「民主共和國原則」、「國民主權原則」、「保障人民權利」、「有關權力分立與制衡之原則」外，《中華民國憲法》前言所陳的憲法緣起、第4條的「固有疆域」等涉及中華民國歷史、國體、立國精神以及主權範圍者，更是「本質中的本質」。
要推翻變更，只有「制憲」一途，這些是修憲的界限，更是釋憲的界限。這一點，識者再三擔憂與提醒，呼籲獨派傾向的大法官，莫濫用釋憲，逾越憲法，實質地變更中華民國的立憲歷史與立國精神，遂成變更國體的「實質制憲」。
新任大法官若執意偏執而為，將帶來的一個災難，就是跨越「法理台獨」紅線的災難，將讓中共領導陷入民族主義的民粹情緒壓力下，等於拆掉中共不犯台的台階，這將是台灣的災難、兩岸的災難與中華民族的災難。
對於社會的疑慮，大法官除了在就職時應敬謹慎重宣誓，也要對外公開宣示，絕不把個人的獨派思維，透過釋憲灌進中華民國的憲政體制，以法理台獨質變中華民國。此外，大法官在釋憲時，當記得釋字第328號在對於中華民國領土此一「重大政治問題」上所表現的自我節制。要有「不應由行使司法權之釋憲機關予以解釋」的克己智慧。
生米煮成熟飯，蔡英文已經提名了獨派色彩的大法官，並通過了立法院同意權投票，即將就職。不過在我國司法獨立憲政機制下，大法官並不受總統的節制，已經埋下的災難引信是否會被點燃，就要看大法官們自己是否信仰憲政主義了。
No comments:
Post a Comment