Taking the Lead in Breaking the Law: Prosecutors Really Are an Indivisible Body

Recently, the Shihlin District Prosecutors Office searched the Neihu District Office, and Chief Prosecutor Lin Chao-sung allegedly called Mayor Ko Wen-je prior to the search. When the Agency Against Corruption searched Yeh Shih-wen and the Farglory Group, Director-General Lai Che-hsiung allegedly called Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shech before the search, and Luo herself admitted to calling Premier Chiang Yi-huah, stating she "hoped the superior would not be left out of the loop." These situations are in fact identical to when Prosecutor-General Huang Shih-ming took wiretapped contents straight to the Presidential Office to report to Ma Ying-jeou. The absurdity of this is just as Huang Shih-ming's defense and the arguments made by "noted constitutional scholar" Hu Fu went: "(The President is) the administrative head, and possesses administrative command and supervisory authority over the Prosecutor-General."

These high-ranking prosecutors have mistaken the object of their allegiance: it should be the rule of law, not their superiors. They have also wrecked the external independence that the prosecutors' office has long strived to maintain. These top officials are fundamentally the culprits who "invited the Qing army through the Shanhai Pass," demonstrating that high-ranking prosecutors are a group with a high degree of "servility." They continuously oppress the independent space of grassroots prosecutors and, "following the example set by those above," corrupt prosecutorial culture and ethos. Coupled with the case of Chou Chi-hung, a prosecutorial investigator at the Taichung District Prosecutors Office, who was detained and barred from communication for accepting bribes, where Chief Prosecutor Yang Hsiu-mei allegedly issued a "gag order" afterward forbidding investigative personnel from speaking out, this highlights that within the prosecutorial system, a high degree of "lack of transparency" persists. Even for reasonable questioning or simple information disclosure, the system is accustomed to operating in the dark under the banner of "non-disclosure of investigation." Finally, and most unbearably, after being exposed, they abuse legal provisions to bluff—representing the most negative textbook example of the rule of law, while even "leading by example."

When Will They Wash Away the Stigma of Servility?

Whether a phone call was made is a very simple question. Mayor Ko says yes, the Shihlin District Prosecutors Office says no, meaning one side is lying. The Shihlin District Prosecutors Office initially denied it and later admitted to making the call, casting a shadow over this incident and making it necessary to strive for clarification. Presenting call logs and comparing them with the search times to clear the Chief Prosecutor's "innocence" should not be difficult.

When the phone call was made and when the search took place are also very easy matters to prove. Making a phone call before conducting a search is a violation of the non-disclosure of investigation principle. Lin Chao-sung, Lai Che-hsiung, and Lo Ying-shay not only bear administrative responsibility, but are also suspected of the same crime of divulging secrets as Huang Shih-ming. The question is, are there any prosecutors dare to investigate this? If not, does the Prosecutor-General dare to designate someone to investigate? Truly discouraging.

If the search took place before the phone call was made, there may be no issue of illegal leakage of secrets. The problem lies in: why be so "polite" as to still make this phone call? This question is something only these high-ranking prosecutors know the answer to. If it is difficult to put into words, "commoners" would also hope that their requests could be "handled in the same manner." Just like Vice President Wu's grandson urgently obtaining a passport at the airport—which "was not a privilege" and even brought blessings to the ordinary people. Please have chief prosecutors call and pay their respects one by one.

"Selective" Non-Disclosure of Investigation

Compared to the courts, which have long opened their doors and widely invited citizens to enter, the prosecutorial system still remains accustomed to conducting investigations "in secret" and is unwilling to be scrutinized. Even if there is merely any preliminary questioning or simple information disclosure, they simply ignore it if they wish. Searching the Neihu District Office to investigate corruption was originally a good thing, but the Chief Prosecutor making a phone call that should not have been made, combined with inconsistent statements, greatly compromised this good deed. It also deflected focus from the issue and battered the morale of investigating prosecutors.

The Taichung District Prosecutors Office seeking the detention of one of their own is all the more commendable—showing courage in taking on responsibilities without shielding their own. Who would have expected the Chief Prosecutor, out of some unknown inspiration, to demand that investigative personnel blockade the news. To think that in today's information-rich era one could still cover the sky with one hand is altogether too naive.

As expected, even the insiders at the Taichung District Prosecutors Office felt it went too far and anonymously leaked it to the media. Upon journalistic verification, the Taichung office initially still denied it. Later, when the truth could no longer be contained, Deputy Chief Prosecutor and Spokesperson Chang Hsiao-wen mollified the media by stating that the matter was not publicized outwardly "based on the non-disclosure of investigation." (I wonder if the Taichung office has opened a separate case to investigate the insider who "violated the non-disclosure of investigation"?)

Prosecutor Chang's statement sounds plausible but is logically fallacious. Whether an investigation is subject to non-disclosure is not up to her alone to decide. Commentators have long pointed out that this is a classic case of "selective" non-disclosure of investigation. In plain terms: if I want to disclose it, I will; if I do not want to disclose it, then it becomes non-disclosure of investigation.

Abusing the Law—The Most Negative Demonstration

Non-disclosure of investigation has principles and exceptions. This is merely the most basic ABC of legal interpretation. If "confirming that a certain individual has been detained" is also considered within the scope of non-disclosure of investigation, then please have the Taichung District Prosecutors Office follow this standard in the future. If they cannot accomplish this, should Chief Prosecutor Yang Hsiu-mei and Prosecutor Chang Hsiao-wen, who made such assertions, not apologize? Does the issue of administrative disciplinary action arise?

What is most unbearable is the Shihlin District Prosecutors Office: from denying a phone call was made to admitting it; from claiming it was the staff prosecutor that Mayor Ko misspoke about, to the shocking revelation that they actually "troubled" the Chief Prosecutor to make the call personally. After relentless questioning by reporters, they even pulled out Article 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to "run interference."