VZCZCXRO0820
OO RUEHCN RUEHGH
DE RUEHIN #0623/01 1421046
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 221046Z MAY 09
FM AIT TAIPEI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1636
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 9199
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0172
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0706
RUEHCN/AMCONSUL CHENGDU 3113
RUEHGZ/AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU 0261
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 0630
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 2566
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 7061
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RHHMUNA/USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHMFISS/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHMFISS/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RHHJJAA/JICPAC HONOLULU HI

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 TAIPEI 000623 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR L 
STATE FOR INL 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/W FOR BARBARA SCHRAGE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/22/2019 
TAGS: PGOV KJUS KCRIM PREL TW CH
SUBJECT: TAIWAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM: RELIABLE BUT ROOM FOR 
 
REFORM 
 
REF: TAIPEI 1690 
 
Classified By: AIT Director Stephen M. Young 
for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
¶1. (C) Summary: Taiwan's judicial system is fundamentally 
reliable and independent, say legal scholars, practitioners, 
and officials, but there is room for reform - as evidenced by 
the controversy surrounding the prosecutions of former 
president Chen Shui-bian and other Democratic Progressive 
Party (DPP) officials.  Structural and procedural measures 
will help ensure fairness and due process.  Reform advocates 
see the heightened public interest and debate as a means of 
pushing additional improvements to the system, such as 
limiting pre-indictment detention.  End Summary. 
 
Structural Measures Ensure Judicial Independence 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶2. (C) In conversations with AIT and in public statements, 
non-partisan legal scholars, NGOs and officials express 
confidence that structural features of Taiwan's judicial 
system help protect the independence of the judiciary and 
ensure due process.  Taiwan's three-tier court system, the 
reliance on three-judge panels in major criminal cases, and 
random case assignments limit variations in sentencing and 
mitigate personal biases or inexperience that may influence 
judgments.  Moreover, Taiwan judges and prosecutors are not 
politically appointed.  They are civil servants who typically 
pass a combined exam after graduating from law school.  Those 
who pass this exam complete two years of classroom and 
practical training before choosing whether to become judges 
or prosecutors.  Procedural reforms instituted over the past 
six years have also strengthened the rights of the accused by 
incorporating elements of the U.S. adversarial system.  Most 
significantly, suspects have the right to have legal counsel 
present during questioning, to have interrogations recorded, 
to be provided with legal counsel if indigent, to 
cross-examine witnesses, and exclude hearsay testimony. 
 
Active Advocacy Encourages Continued Reform 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (C) Taiwan has a history of more than twenty years of 
successful structural and procedural reforms of its 
judiciary.  This pattern of reform continues today with 
lively debate over which areas could benefit next from public 
demands for reform.  During the Lee Teng-hui administration 
in the late 80s, the movement for judicial reform, whose 
members included lawyers, judicial officers, scholars, and 
officials, began in earnest.  Eventually, this led to the 
creation of the Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF) and other 
reform-minded organizations, whose goals were to increase 
judicial independence and public confidence.  Experts and 
academics agree that by the time of the National Judicial 
Reform Conference in 1999, judges and prosecutors could, and 
did, freely assert their judicial independence and that many 
procedural reforms over the past ten years have increased 
protections of defendants' rights.  There is disagreement, 
however, over how effective reforms have been in increasing 
the efficiency of the courts.  Many say Taiwan's current 
"modified" adversarial system, combining elements of the 
Japanese inquisitorial system with elements of the U.S. 
adversarial system, requires continued reform to fully meet 
its obligations to the people. 
 
¶4. (C) One of the most visible targets for reform is 
pre-indictment detention.  While pre-indictment detention is 
a common feature of inquisitorial systems in Europe, Latin 
America, Korea, and Japan, many legal professionals, reform 
advocates, and even former judicial officials agree that the 
use of pre-indictment detention should be limited.  According 
 
TAIPEI 00000623  002 OF 003 
 
 
to Taiwan's Code of Criminal Procedure, a prosecutor may 
request the court to remand a potential defendant to 
detention (before being indicted, or charged) if the charges 
being sought carry a sentence of five years or more, there is 
a risk of flight, or there is concern that the suspect may 
tamper with witness testimony or evidence.  The prosecutor is 
required to demonstrate probable cause and a judge must 
approve the request.  Pre-indictment detention is limited to 
two months at which point the court may extend detention for 
another two months, if necessary.  JRF President Huang told 
AIT that his organization plans to push for a change in 
pre-indictment detention from this two-plus-two formulation 
to something more in line with Japan's pre-indictment 
detention of ten days plus ten days.  Other reforms JRF will 
seek are an increase in public accountability for 
prosecutors, particularly with regard to press leaks, and the 
passage of legislation regulating judicial officers, such as 
the Judges Law currently before the Legislative Yuan (LY). 
 
Chen Case Highlights Concerns 
----------------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) The corruption trial of former President Chen 
Shui-bian (the first president to face prosecution after 
leaving office) and the prosecutions of several former and 
current DPP officials, have prompted intense media scrutiny 
of the reliability and fairness of Taiwan's judicial system 
(ref A).  Critics charge that political interference in the 
judicial process has led to a higher number of DPP 
prosecutions (vice KMT) since President Ma Ying-jeou took 
office in May 2008.  Chen's trial has also brought 
international attention to issues such as pre-indictment and 
pre-trial detention, as well as prosecutorial leaks and 
misconduct, accountability and transparency in judicial 
procedures.  While reform advocates such as the Judicial 
Reform Foundation and the Legal Aid Foundation note that some 
of these issues are longstanding and not particular to the 
Chen case, they add that the media spotlight on Chen's trial 
has prompted a welcome public review of the areas where 
Taiwan's judicial system could benefit from further reform. 
 
Political Interference vs. Political Bias 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (C) Legal scholars and practitioners agree it is hard to 
prove political interference by the KMT government in the 
former President's case, particularly since the investigation 
into his alleged misconduct began while Chen was in office. 
Some scholars and legal experts note that, while political 
interference by the KMT government in the judicial system is 
unlikely, political bias by individual judges and prosecutors 
remains possible.  The ability of such bias to influence 
judicial decisions cannot be excluded, but should be treated 
as individual misconduct and disciplined or prosecuted 
accordingly.  Such individual bias, say these scholars, is 
common to all legal systems.  Ultimately, the use of 
three-judge panels for important cases and Taiwan's 
three-level appeal system mitigate against the risk of 
political interference or bias, they note. 
 
Freedom of Press Allows Open Debate, Exerts Pressure 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶7. (C) Reform advocates hope heightened public interest in 
the judicial process will help further their push for reform. 
 Certainly, freedom of speech and press on Taiwan is 
well-developed and the active media here provides a venue for 
the vibrant and often contentious debate over judicial 
independence and political influence on the judicial process. 
 At times, the media can become part of the problem, however. 
 While the media is active, it can also be irresponsible, 
with local papers and television talk shows more interested 
 
TAIPEI 00000623  003 OF 003 
 
 
in finding sensational stories than fact-checking their 
findings.  Similarly, the media can be aggressive and may not 
respect personal or professional boundaries in pursuit of a 
story.  Prosecutors often feel unable to restrict media 
access for fear of criticism in the press.  Prosecutors and 
judges acknowledge that strong criticism from media 
commentators or negative coverage can generate public 
pressure on judicial officials, though there is no clear 
evidence of influence on court judgments.  Perhaps of greater 
concern are allegations that, as happens at times in the 
United States, parties with access to confidential 
information in high-profile trials selectively leak it to the 
media to influence public opinion. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶8. (C)  It is important to bear in mind that the judicial 
system that Chen supporters and some DPP officials claim is 
rife with pro-KMT personnel using their offices to persecute 
political opponents is the same one that has prosecuted key 
KMT members in recent years.  For example, current President 
Ma Ying-jeou was tried for budget abuses, KMT legislator Liao 
Cheng-chin for vote-buying, and Taichung City Council Speaker 
Chang Hung-nien for corruption.  Perhaps more importantly, it 
is the same institution that helped ensure political 
stability in the aftermath of the 2004 elections, ultimately 
confirming Chen Shui-bian's re-election and striking down as 
unconstitutional the KMT-controlled legislature's March 19 
Shooting Incident Truth Commission Statute.  In fact, current 
calls for legal reform tend to focus not so much on ensuring 
the independence of the judicial process, but on constraining 
the powers of judges and prosecutors in order to prevent 
abuse.  When pressed, most independent observers recognize 
the judicial system as an imperfect but improving and 
generally reliable and independent institution. 
YOUNG