No excuse for court delay

In February 2018, the Executive Yuan’s Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee designated the National Women’s League of the Republic of China as a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) organization.

The league retaliated by filing an administrative lawsuit against the Executive Yuan. This case was then brought to the Supreme Court for resolution. In August 2020, the justices announced that the party assets regulations were constitutional.

The recovery of ill-gotten party assets is an important step in achieving a democratic and constitutional order in the nation.

However, the Taipei High Administrative Court dropped the ball and stalled the proceedings in the “preparatory phase” without reconvening a court session.

The Executive Yuan’s litigation over the league’s nationalization of NT$38.7 billion (US$1.89 billion) in military and labor donations to the league has likewise stalled.

The Taipei High Administrative Court’s ruling was halted due to a constitutional interpretation. The judge proceeded with the on-schedule trying of the case through a hearing plan and there was no dragging out of the case.

A high-profile, significant case has been pushed down the docket for six years now, remaining unresolved, even though the judge’s interpretation was released four years ago.

It is exasperating that no headway has been made. Taipei High Administrative Court officials have said that even the court’s personnel do not wish to see the stalling, much less the public, who have high expectations of legal system reform.

Will this case end up expiring due to exceeding a statute of limitations? Is there a proper reason for the continuous delay? Should we blame the presiding judge for their idleness or for intentionally pushing down on the brake pedal?

What exactly are the contents of this judge’s so-called “hearing plan?”

Since the case has been sitting in the public trial phase, there is no suitable excuse through a principle of closed deliberations that could be used to explain the delay away.

The Taipei High Administrative Court must give a detailed explanation to the public so the goals of implementing transitional justice and improving public confidence in the judiciary do not become slogans that deceive the public into thinking it could achieve justice. TIEN FONG-WEN

New Taipei City