Statement | The Judicial Reform Foundation's Six Major Demands for Congressional Reform Regarding the "Power of Personnel Consent"

Following the opening of the new legislature, the three major political parties have successively put forward their proposals for congressional reform. Recently, the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee of the Legislative Yuan has also scheduled various parties' bills related to congressional reform.

As a member of the "Alliance for Civil Supervision of Judicial Yuan Grand Justice Nominees," the Judicial Reform Foundation has long been concerned with the oversight and check-and-balance functions exercised by the legislature over the "power of personnel consent" under our constitutional democracy. Therefore, regarding the reform of the provisions concerning the power of personnel consent in the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan's Power, we propose six major demands as follows:

1. Nominees for Prosecutor-General shall be reviewed by the Committee of the Whole House

In addition to exercising the power of personnel consent in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Additional Articles of the Constitution, the Legislative Yuan also exercises the power of personnel consent pursuant to statutory provisions (such as the Prosecutor-General and members of independent agencies like the Central Election Commission). However, the relevant procedures are not explicitly stipulated in this Act.

We believe it is necessary to codify these rules, and passage should require the consent of more than one-half of all members of the Legislative Yuan. Furthermore, given that the Prosecutor-General holds the crucial responsibility of independently directing and supervising the prosecutorial system, possessing a high degree of importance and independence, we advocate that the Prosecutor-General should also be reviewed by a "Committee of the Whole House" to enhance the rigor of the review.

2. Adequate review, with a duration of no less than two months

Current regulations governing the review of the power of personnel consent are excessively rudimentary, and situations often arise where there is insufficient time for review; the exercise of the power of personnel consent for important positions frequently becomes a mere formality. For instance, the past exercise of the consent power for Grand Justices has occasionally been inadequate and rushed. An urgent review schedule inevitably prevents a thorough examination and precludes various sectors of society from expressing their opinions, which threatens to erode the legitimacy of Grand Justice appointments and harms judicial credibility.

To enhance the quality of the review of the power of personnel consent, we believe that the committee must be granted sufficient review time, and the review period following referral to the committee shall not be less than 2 months.

3. Written questions submitted to nominees in advance to focus the review on key issues

Although nominees currently submit educational and career backgrounds, autobiographies, and other materials, while necessary, these still inevitably tend to become mere formalities or fail to focus on the disputed issues concerning their suitability.

To enable reviews and questioning to be focused in advance, party caucuses or legislators should be permitted to submit written inquiries regarding review-related issues in advance, and nominees shall have the obligation to respond within a reasonable period, serving as the basis for subsequent reviews and questioning.

4. Public hearings shall be held to broadly incorporate opinions from civil society experts

The exercise of the power of personnel consent should not merely be a political contest or a voting battle, but rather a method to allow society to further understand and scrutinize the nominees. Therefore, prior to conducting the review procedure, the committee must hold public hearings, allowing a certain proportion of experts, scholars, and civil society organizations to provide consultative opinions, and inviting nominees to attend or collectively respond to questions. Meanwhile, should appropriate arrangements be made, we also support hearings with even more rigorous procedures.

5. Item-by-item questioning and answering to rigorously examine the suitability of nominees

In past reviews of the power of personnel consent, there were frequent occurrences of insufficient review time and multiple nominees being questioned simultaneously. Under limited time, questioning might focus on a single specific nominee, resulting in perfunctory reviews and inconsistent standards.

To strengthen the exercise of the consent power and rigorously examine each nominee, it should be explicitly stipulated that every nominee must accept questioning individually and be afforded adequate time for questioning and answering. After the committee's questioning concludes, a review opinion report should be drafted synthesizing the circumstances of the hearings, serving as the basis for the plenary session to exercise its consent power.

6. Nominees who provide false or untruthful responses may be subject to administrative fines

The subjects of the Legislative Yuan's power of personnel consent are mostly important positions stipulated by the Constitution, or government officials who must remain detached and independent by nature. The integrity and credibility of the nominees can be said to be the absolute prerequisite for the performance of their duties.

We advocate that in order for the legislature to conduct a substantive review based on accurate and complete information, if an investigative procedure is necessary to clarify facts, it should be explicitly stipulated that the written materials or oral answers presented by nominees therein must not be false or untruthful. Violators may be subject to administrative fines by a resolution of the plenary session. In other words, barring statutory grounds for refusing testimony, nominees shall provide truthful statements and accurate information regarding the facts under investigation.

Parts of the opinions above can already be found scattered across the congressional reform bills awaiting review in the Legislative Yuan. We urge all political parties to synthesize the merits of each version to propose the most comprehensive reform plan, thereby fostering the rigor of the review of the power of personnel consent!

---

Press Contacts

Lü Cheng-yen, Attorney-at-Law, Director of the Legal Policy Department, Judicial Reform Foundation
Telephone: 02-2523-1178#37
Email: elvin@jrf.org.tw