Flaws mean Chen verdict violates the Constitution
Thursday, Sep 17, 2009, Page 8
Judicial power comes from the idea that sovereignty rests with the people and that courts must uphold the right to institute legal proceedings. Judges are guardians of the public’s rights and should abide by the Constitution and the law to protect the public’s rights. Decisions based on violations of legal procedure are illegitimate. The verdict in former president Chen Shui-bian’s corruption trial is therefore invalid, violating constitutional articles 80 and 16 and constitutional interpretation No. 530.
The legal principle of a “legally competent judge” is at the heart of Article 80, which prescribes a basis for ensuring a fair court. The concept of a legally competent judge is key to ensuring fairness when implementing Article 16, which ensures the right to institute legal proceedings as stated in articles 80 and 16 and in constitutional interpretation No. 530. Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun was not a legally competent judge for the Chen case.
The verdict also violates constitutional Article 8 and constitutional interpretations No. 384 and 392. Article 8 states that “no person shall be tried or punished otherwise than by a law court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.”
The term “competent court” referred to in constitutional interpretations No. 384 and 392 refers to a “tribunal composed of a judge or a panel of judges empowered to try cases.”
Legally competent judges can hear trials. However, Tsai was replaced by his superiors during the Chen trial and lacked the judicial power to preside over the case and the power to detain him.
The verdict also breaches constitutional interpretation No. 653. Constitutional Article 16 protects the right to institute legal proceedings. Citizens have the right to request a fair trial based on legitimate legal procedures, and no one should be deprived of this. These principles are explained in constitutional interpretation No. 653. While Chen is a former president, his guarantees to legitimate legal procedure and the right of personal freedom should be the same as any other citizen’s and may not be ignored or made stricter for him.
Additionally, the verdict violates Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that lists regulations for combining cases subject to the jurisdiction of several courts at the same level under one court. Based on the spirit of these regulations, cases in courts at the same level can be combined only following a ruling to this end. The change of judge during Chen’s trial was not based on such a ruling and breached the law.
Moreover, the verdict violates constitutional articles 78, 171, 172 and 173; Article 5, Paragraph 4 of the Additional Articles to the Constitution; and constitutional interpretations Nos. 371, 572 and 590. Consolidated trials are aimed at preventing disagreements over decisions and making proceedings more economical, but are mostly the result of the accused agreeing to a consolidated trial. If the accused disagrees, he must not be deprived of his right to a legally competent judge.
In terms of disputes over the constitutionality of a case, judges should actively seek and wait for a constitutional interpretation instead of relying on their own opinions to determine whether something is unconstitutional.
Finally, the verdict violates constitutional interpretation No. 418, which states: “Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to bring a lawsuit and the intent is to ensure that the people have the right to initiate lawsuits in accordance with the legal procedures and the right to a fair trial.”
Justice is not just about someone being pronounced guilty or not guilty — proper procedures should be followed and upheld.
Hung Ying-hua is a division chief judge in the Shilin District Court.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
扁案判決自始無效◎ 洪英花
法官的審判權源自「主權在民」，法院是為了維護人民訴訟權而存在，法官身為人民權利守護神，自應守憲守法、捍衛人民權利。違反正當法律程序作成的「無效裁判」，自不具實質正當性，對任何人均不生羈束力。扁案判決自始當然無效。
（一）違反憲法第八十條、第十六條及司法院釋字第五三○號
我國憲法第八十條審判獨立在建構公平法院，「法定法官原則」為其核心價值，並在落實憲法第十六條訴訟權之保障，「法定法官」為實現公平正義之鑰，為我國憲法第八十條、第十六條及司法院釋字第五三○號所明定。蔡守訓合議庭並非扁案「法定法官」，無權審理扁案。
（二）違反憲法第八條及司法院釋字第三八四、三九二號
憲法第八條明定，人民非由法院依法定程序不得審問處罰。所謂「法院」，當指有審判權之法官所構成之獨任或合議之法院（司法院釋字第三八四號、第三九二號參照）。「法定法官」乃能依法對人民審問處罰，蔡守訓合議庭為「簽呈法官」，對扁案既無審理權責，更無羈押權，扁案判決自始、當然無效。
（三）違反司法院釋字第六五三號
憲法第十六條保障人民訴訟權，係指人民有權利請求依正當法律程序公正審判，不得因身分不同而予以剝奪，亦據司法院釋字第六五三號解釋理由書闡明。阿扁雖貴為前總統，其正當法律程序及人身自由權之保障，與一般人民應相互平等，不容漠視或更加（相對）嚴苛。
（四）違反刑事訴訟法第六條
刑事訴訟法第六條係針對數同級法院相牽連案件合併管轄之規定，依其精神，同一法院相牽連案件固得合併由其中一法官合併審判，惟其合併均須以裁定移併，扁案換法官未以「裁定」移併，自屬違法。
（五）違反憲法第七十八條、第一七一條、第一七二條、第一七三條、憲法增修條文第五條第四項及司法院釋字第三七一、五七二、五九○號
合併審判固在防杜裁判歧異並顧及訴訟經濟，惟多係出於被告對於合併審判無爭議之情況下為之，被告若堅執抗議，其「法定法官權利不可被剝奪」。
法官審理具體個案，發生違憲爭議，應積極扮演聲請釋憲角色，並等候大法官之釋憲判斷，不容率爾依憑個人主觀之認知，怠於形成違憲確信，跳躍程序爭議，逕入實體審理。
（六）違反司法院釋字第四一八號、第四三六號
司法院釋字第四一八號指出「憲法第十六條保障人民有訴訟之權，旨在確保人民有依法定程序受公平審判之權利。」釋字第四三六號亦表明「國家刑罰權之發動與運作，必須符合正當法律程序之最低要求。」個案正義的落實，所賴絕不止於實體審理結果的有罪、無罪，並兼含程序實踐的過程與堅持。
（作者為士林地方法院刑庭長）
