Making the "Judicial Sunshine Website" Better: Addressing Concerns and Criticisms from Various Sectors Regarding the JRF's "Judicial Sunshine Net"
Last edited: 2026-08-27
Strengthening Judicial Accountability and Transparency: A Comprehensive Response Regarding the Judicial Sunshine Initiative
Our response to the concerns and advice from various sectors regarding our foundation's promotion of the "Judicial Sunshine" website is as follows:
The foundation established the "Judicial Sunshine" website because, since the implementation of the Judges Act, we have seen almost no effort from the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice to implement a "comprehensive evaluation system" for judges and prosecutors in accordance with the Judges Act, resulting in the failure to achieve the objective of comprehensive supervision over judges and prosecutors. Even when evaluations take place, the results are not made public, completely neutralizing the commendable intent of the Judges Act. Furthermore, courts at all levels have traditionally been conservative—prosecutors offices even more so—and self-regulatory functions have consistently remained ineffective, rendering enhanced external oversight necessary.
The "Judicial Sunshine" project is divided into two phases. In the first phase, all data is obtained from publicly accessible networks and only pertains to judges and prosecutors. Once the information is more complete, the second phase will establish a mobile application capable of real-time reporting, backed by rigorous screening and anti-fraud mechanisms. After accumulating and collecting information, we will verify it with the relevant authorities to request self-regulation or pursue external accountability. This aims to enrich observations of courts and prosecutors offices, bridging the long-standing gaps left by a lack of sufficient human resources to conduct nationwide, comprehensive courtroom observations and the inability to observe investigative hearings. We hope that through this mechanism, well-performing judges and prosecutors will be recognized, while underperforming ones will be eliminated.
Regarding the recent feedback from the judicial sector, we hope the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecutors Association, the Prosecutors Reform Association, the Judicial Yuan, the Judges Association, and individual prosecutors and judges can offer constructive responses and engage in dialogue, rather than resorting to piecemeal criticism or intimidating threats. The foundation extends its deepest apologies to judges and prosecutors for any erroneous information or typographical errors, such as gender avatar mismatches, homonyms, or incorrect service locations. Errors resulting from difficulties in obtaining information not only affect the judicial image but also harm our own credibility, which was never the foundation's original intention. We would like to remind everyone once again that corrections will be made as quickly as possible simply by submitting the website form, contacting us via email, or informing us by phone.
Regarding related news commentaries, many judges and prosecutors have specifically pointed out that media coverage may be overly sensational or present only one-sided information, which can easily vilify the image of judges or prosecutors, and thus should not be actively compiled and displayed in a database by the foundation. Therefore, following sound advice, the foundation is willing to change the news commentary section to passive search engine results.
Concerning the removal of records where evaluation requests were dismissed as ungrounded, we find the suggestion reasonable. Accordingly, where an evaluation request is deemed ungrounded, we agree to remove the relevant information from the website. However, we must remind the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Yuan that there are many reasons why evaluation requests are dismissed, particularly because the statute of limitations for prosecutor evaluations is often too short, which is also the primary reason our foundation advocates amending the Judges Act. At times, requests are difficult to sustain because audio-video discs cannot be obtained, or because the Prosecutors Evaluation Committee makes one-sided determinations of hearing proceedings and refuses to provide information. All of these circumstances often create the perception that officials are shielding one another.
Unless the authorities still advocate "judicial mysticism," the appropriate disclosure of information regarding judges and prosecutors that pertains to the public interest should be acceptable to all parties in today's open society. Accurate information is exclusively possessed by the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Yuan; proper disclosure and transparency are the correct path to earning the public's trust in the judiciary. We sincerely hope that the authorities will build relevant websites on their own or assist and participate in civil society's efforts, so as to avoid a situation where civil society organizations, with very limited resources and data access, struggle to reach the day when information is as complete as all parties expect. In the early days, when civil society demanded that judges display nameplates and promoted the evaluation system for judges and prosecutors, the authorities consistently adopted conservative and oppositional stances, with an endless history of resisting reform. However, time has proven that greater openness and transparency remain the sole means for judges and prosecutors to gain public trust.
Therefore, our foundation maintains that the "Judicial Sunshine" website is highly pertinent to the public interest, and the Ministry of Justice and prosecutors' groups have clearly misunderstood it by demanding the complete removal of the website. As for the concerns raised by the Judicial Yuan and the Judges Association that certain contents may be improper, we consistently uphold an open and constructive attitude toward dialogue. The setting of reasonable boundaries can be thoroughly discussed. Whether engaging with the Ministry of Justice, prosecutors' groups, the Judicial Yuan, or judges' associations, we look forward to "dialogue instead of rhetoric," working collaboratively to explore how greater transparency can cultivate public trust in the judiciary. We are deeply aware that the vast majority of judges and prosecutors are hardworking and dedicated, steadfastly holding their posts despite the deficiencies of our current judicial system—an effort worthy of profound respect. The "Judicial Sunshine" website was established to eliminate the few unfit personnel whom the judicial community has compromise-driven reluctance to address, as well as to commend outstanding judicial personnel, with the ultimate objective of making the judiciary more trustworthy to the public. We earnestly hope that the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice will propose concrete measures that foster greater judicial transparency and public openness than the "Judicial Sunshine" initiative, thereby improving long-standing public distrust in the judiciary. If not, we welcome them to join us in this endeavor.
Press Contact
Kao Jung-chih, CEO of the Judicial Reform Foundation 02-25231178
Footnote
Information on the public disclosure of judge and prosecutor information in various countries
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.
