Does the Legislature Still Have Any Self-Discipline?

Does the Legislature Still Have Any Self-Discipline?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 5, 2013

Summary: Huang Shi-ming exposed legislators who peddled influence in criminal justice cases. He fought for an independent criminal justice system. He wanted to provide the legislature with a clean, corruption free environment. But lo and behold, the legislature spared no effort to protect its own. The Legislative Yuan has made clear it has no intention of allowing the criminal justice system to prosecute legislators who engage in influence peddling.

Full text below:

The political drama that began in September, has dragged on to November. Two phone calls touched off an influence peddling scandal and led to clashes over legislative self-discipline, information leaks, and wire tapping. Each of these is a story in itself. But the disproportionate manner in which these four cases have been dealt with, defies credulity. After two months of foot-dragging, the Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee has finally convened to discuss the influence peddling case. Everyone is waiting to see what it will do. They want to see how the ruling and and opposition party legislators stand on the influence peddling case. They want to see just how much discipline the "Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee" plans to mete out.

This case began when the Special Investigative Unit overheard Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming talking on the phone. The two spoke of "persuading" prosecutors not to appeal criminal charges filed against Ker Chien-ming. As a result, Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming referred the case to the President for Legislative Yuan disciplinary action. President Ma Ying-jeou dealt with the matter in his capacity as KMT Chairman. He referred the matter to the KMT Party Disciplinary Committee, which revoked Wang Jin-pyng's party membership. But Wang filed an injunction with the courts, protesting the revocation of his party membership. He was able to retain his party membership and status as a legislator without portfolio. The case suddenly morphed into one about information leaks and wiretapping. Ironically, prosecution of these charges was pursued far more swiftly and far more aggressively than influence peddling.

Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming launched Special Investigation Unit investigations of legislators who peddle influence in criminal cases. Yet he has been indicted by the Taipei District Prosecutors' Office for "leaking information to the President." The President has been subpoenaed as a witness. In the blink of an eye, Huang Shi-ming went from Justice Bao Qin Tian to Public Enemy Number One. DPP legislators declared open season on him. KMT legislators refused to side with him. Both Blue and Green camp legislators could hardly wait for him to step down. They hoped to disband the Special Investigation Unit. As matters stand, even if the Special Investigation Unit is not disbanded, it has already been rendered a paraplegic. Every day it must deal with the legislature. How can it possibly find time to punish evildoers and corruption?

The Executive Yuan is equal in status with the Legislative Yuan and the Judicial Yuan. Yet Executive Yuan President Jiang Yi-hua has been subpoenaed as a witness by the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office and the Control Yuan. The Premier's policy address to the legislature has been delayed a month and a half. Huang had nothing to do with influence peddling, leaking information, or illegal wiretapping. Yet the opposition DPP is demanding his resignation. Meanwhile, the two individuals who engaged in influence peddling, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng and DPP Party Whip Ker Chien-ming, have so far gotten away scot free. The Control Yuan Evaluation Committee wants to investigate the influence peddling case, but the two men have refused to testify. The Control Yuan wants to investigate the charges of leaking secrets, but the two men have refused to appear before it as well. They say the Control Yuan has no jurisdiction over the Legislative Yuan.

This means only one thing. The legislature truly does wield power. Prosecutors want to interrogate witnesses. The President himself is obligated to testify. But legislators are not. The Control Yuan wants to investigate wrongdoing. The Premier cannot refuse. But legislators can. Is this an example of democratic checks and balances? No one outranks the Legislative Yuan. Therefore the Legislative Yuan must rely on self-discipline.

What can legislative self-discipline accomplish? Based on the past record, it is hard to be optimistic. The Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee sanctioned Luo Fu-chu, who provoked a physical altercation with female legislator Diane Lee. But other cases are conveniently swept under the rug. In recent years, no disciplinary actions have been taken at all. Legislators who use obscenties are given a free pass. Legislators who use brute force to occupy the podium are given a free pass. Legislators who attach locks to the Speaker of the Legislature's Office are given a free pass. Legislators who engage in influence peddling are offered "sympathy" and "understanding" that far exceed any indignation they might feel over information leaks and wire taps. Since the Legislative Yuan convened, it has refused to allow the Premier to deliver his address. The Judiciary Committee has held several meetings about wire taps and information leaks. Huang Shi-ming cannot cope. At least twice a week he must confront legislators who demand that he step down. All he can do is brace himself, and remember that his daughter testified to his fairmindedness. Few people have offered him any sympathy.

Consider the matter from a rule of law perspective. When Huang Shi-ming conducted his investigation he did in fact commit several procedural errors. They pertain to leaking information and abuse of wire tapping authority. He may find it difficult to avoid criminal and administrative penalties. These are consequences of his own negligence. No one can absolve him of responsibility for them. But the public has to wonder. Assume Huang Shi-ming leaked information and engaged in illegal wiretaps. Does that mean a nation under the rule of law can permit legislators to engage in influence peddling? Can voters cavalierly permit legislators to engage in illegal conduct? Can society tolerate a legislature utterly lacking in self-discipline?

One thing is puzzling. The prosecutorial system has its own turf wars. Prosecutors have remained indifferent to the merits and demerits of the influence peddling case. This has provoked suspicions of infighting among prosecutors. The details of the influence peddling case have yet to emerge. Yet the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office has already charged Huang Shi-ming with leaking information. The Taipei District Prosecutor's Office and the Special Investigative Unit usually notify concerned agencies, including the Legislative Yuan, before they conduct searches. Were they all guilty of "leaking information?" If even officials inside the criminal justice system refuse to maintain their independence and impartiality, how can the public trust them to stand by the underdog when confronted by powerful special interests?

Huang Shi-ming exposed legislators who peddled influence in criminal justice cases. He fought for an independent criminal justice system. He wanted to provide the legislature with a clean, corruption free environment. But lo and behold, the legislature spared no effort to protect its own. The Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee dragged its feet for two months before it finally convened. It turned a deaf ear to calls to give the "Legislative Practices Act" teeth. It made clear that the Legislative Yuan has no intention of allowing the criminal justice system to prosecute legislators who engage in influence peddling. Is this what passes for judicial independence and impartiality? How much is the Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee worth? Let us see how they deal with the Wang Ker influence peddling case, and we will know soon enough.

社論－立法院還有「自律」嗎
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年11月05日 04:10

九月政治大戲發展迄今，兩通電話引爆的司法關說案一路衍生到國會自律、洩密案、監聽案，諸案之間既相關又各有「案情」，然而，這4案受到的關切和處理卻完全失衡，在事隔兩個月之後，立法院紀律委員會終於要開會討論司法關說案的「處理程序」，全民張大了眼，看看朝野立委面對關說司法個案的姿態，所謂的「國會自律」到底能自律到什麼程度？

此案的源頭在於特偵組查案監聽到王金平與柯建銘的電話，談及涉嫌要求檢察官對柯涉入之司法案件不上訴，檢察總長黃世銘為此報告總統並言明此案屬國會自律範疇，馬英九總統以國民黨主席身分將王金平交予國民黨考紀會處理，並通過撤銷王金平黨籍的處分，但王聲請黨籍假處分後，保留黨籍和不分區立委身分，全案急轉直下往洩密與不當監聽發展，而且進展遠比司法關說案更快更猛。

發動偵查國會關說司法個案的特偵組檢察總長黃世銘，因為「涉嫌洩密給總統」而被北檢起訴成為被告，總統也將因此成為該案被約詢的證人，黃世銘從青天大人轉眼成了過街老鼠，民進黨立委追擊他，國民黨立委不同情他，不分藍綠都恨不得他辭職下台，最好連特偵組都廢掉，以目前的發展，特偵組不裁也形同半報廢，每天應付立法院都來不及，哪還有力氣懲奸罰惡辦貪腐？

即使與立法、司法平行的行政院長江宜樺同樣不免在洩密案與監聽案中，成為北檢與監察院約詢調查的證人，連立法院的施政報告都因而拖延了長達一個半月的時間，不論關說、洩密、監聽都不是他，他卻成為反對黨要求下台負責的箭靶。反倒是關說案的兩位當事人，立法院長王金平與民進黨總召柯建銘，迄今無事一身輕，檢評會要司法調查關說案，兩位當事人亦拒絕做證；監察院要調查洩密案，兩人同樣拒絕，理由是監察院管不到立法院。

事態發展至此，只能說明一件事：立法院真的夠力！檢察官要約詢，總統還要盡證人之義務，立委不必；監察院要調查，行政院長沒有說「不」的空間，立委卻有。這到底是不是民主政治監督制衡的道理？天大、地大都比不上立法院大，那麼還非得靠國會自律不可。

國會自律到底能做什麼事？從過去的紀錄來看，實在無法讓人樂觀，除了處分過與女立委李慶安發生衝突的無黨籍立委羅福助外，其他諸案莫不行禮如儀不了了之，近幾年連「案」都沒有，立委罵三字經不處理，立委霸占主席台不處理，立委鐵鎖議長座席不處理，立委對司法關說案的「同情與理解」，顯然遠遠超過對洩密和監聽的憤怒，立法院這個會期開議以來，行政院長總質詢可以杯葛延宕，司法委員會卻多次舉行會議就監聽與洩密進行專案報告，黃世銘在委員會左支右絀，每周至少兩次要應付立委要求他下台負責的壓力，他只能硬著頭皮以女兒印證自己為公忘私之心，還是沒人給予他太多同情。

從法治角度就事論事，黃世銘在偵查與結案的程序上確有瑕疵，其涉及洩密與濫權監聽，已不易從刑事與行政處罰中脫身，他因自己疏忽而造成的後果，沒人能為他卸責，然而，社會大眾不能不問清楚，即使黃世銘在洩密與監聽上確有過失，難道法治國家可以容許立法委員關說司法個案嗎？選民可輕縱立法委員的不當行徑嗎？社會可以容忍一個不懂得自律的國會嗎？

令人不解的是，檢察系統也各擁其主，對關說案本質上的是非不聞不問，甚至引爆檢察內鬥疑雲，在關說案尚未釐清前，北檢就先一步以洩密起訴了黃世銘，很難想像過去不論是北檢或特偵組，在發動搜索之前知會相關機關如立法院之舉，是否同樣全部都涉嫌洩密？如果連司法人員自己都不維護司法的獨立公正，尋常民眾又如何信賴司法碰上特權還會公正地站在弱勢的一方？

更遺憾的是，黃世銘揭發立委關說司法個案，為的是爭一個司法獨立的空間，也還給立法院一個更清明的問政空間，結果立法院迴護自己人不遺餘力，紀律委員會拖了兩個月才終於要召開，但對在《立委行為法》中增訂罰則以強化關說司法的規範，卻聽而不聞，擺明了立法院不准司法機關辦立委關說司法案，這就是所謂的司法獨立與公正嗎？立法院紀律委員會到底還有多少存在的價值？就讓我們看看他們如何處理王柯司法關說案吧。