Conclusion of Investigation in the Hung Chung-chiu Case: JRF Statement on Half-Hearted Reform Leading to Endless Future Troubles!

The military prosecutor's office concluded its investigation into the Hung Chung-chiu case amidst public outrage, proving that it truly failed to live up to public expectations. Not only was it incapable of clarifying the truth, but it also rushed indictments, covered up facts, and shirked responsibility. To appease public anger, the ruling party, the Executive Yuan, and the Ministry of Defense feigned reform of the Code of Court-Martial within an extremely narrow scope. This once again highlights the ruling authorities' symptom of treating the symptoms rather than the root cause and smacks of stalling for time. Therefore, our Foundation issues the following solemn statement:

1. The reason why the Hung Chung-chiu case has sparked nationwide public fury is precisely because the military judicial system is profoundly distrusted by the people. According to a TVBS poll, over 70% (76%) of the public are dissatisfied with the military prosecutors' investigation process, 66% believe the military will not fully cooperate with agencies such as the Ministry of Justice in the investigation, and nearly 70% (68%) of the public lack confidence that the truth of the Hung case will ever be fully brought to light.
2. In reality, all of this distrust stems from the systemic problems of military justice. With the non-separation of prosecution and adjudication, both military prosecutors and judges are centrally managed by the Ministry of Defense, stripping away the fundamental judicial functions of being "independent and impartial." Taking the Hung case as an example, within a closed military system that emphasizes rank and obedience, military prosecutors are mostly company-grade or, at most, field-grade officers. How could they possibly possess the independence to direct case investigations and investigate or indict officers of higher rank than themselves? Furthermore, if military prosecutors and judges view themselves as "part of the military," how could they ever be willing to "air dirty laundry in public"? Flaws in systemic design not only make military prosecutors and judges vulnerable to pressure and unable to remain independent, but they also inevitably subject the fairness of investigations and trials to intense skepticism.
3. As early as 1997 in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 436, the Grand Justices clearly pointed out that Article 9 of the Constitution was enacted to protect ordinary citizens from military trial, and must never be interpreted in reverse to mean that crimes committed by military personnel fall "exclusively" under the jurisdiction of military judicial organs. The Grand Justices explicitly stated that the Constitution does not explicitly stipulate whether a "military judicial system" should be established, making military justice a "discretionary" system. However, if a military judicial system is to exist, it must comply with the "fundamental principles" of the establishment of judicial power, such as being "independent, impartial, compliant with due process of law, Article 77 of the Constitution (the Judicial Yuan as the highest judicial organ), and Article 80 (judges shall independently try cases in accordance with the law)."
4. Therefore, we point out with profound grief that the 1999 amendments to the Code of Court-Martial failed to take comprehensive reform of the military judicial system back into the general judicial system in one fell swoop, which is clearly a total failure! We strongly urge that now is the opportune moment to comprehensively reform the military judicial system. If the military judicial system is not to be completely abolished for the time being, at the very least, all "non-wartime" military law cases should be "fully transferred" to general judicial organs for prosecution and trial, so as to ensure the fundamental functions of an "independent and impartial" judicial system. We solemnly reject another half-hearted reform like the one in 1999, for half-hearted reforms will bring endless future troubles!

Press Contacts

LIN Feng-cheng, Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation 02-25231178