Refuse to comment for more than 300 days, but express different opinions despite holding the title/Three justices also collected royalties, judicial report

Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the deliberation for more than 300 days, but repeatedly issued "disagreeing legal opinions" after the judgment was announced. They used the extra word "law" to cleverly avoid the restriction that they could not submit a formal "dissenting opinion" without participating in the deliberation. With the title of Chief Justice and "my seat", the article was published in the "Taiwan Legal Person" magazine, and the "Fayuan Legal Network" was authorized to use it and obtain royalties. Due to the controversy, Fayuan has removed the legal opinions of the three people from the shelves; other legal professionals reported to the Judicial Yuan, requesting the initiation of an investigation.

Fayuan.com removes legal opinions

The Constitutional Court responded yesterday that three justices who did not participate in the substantive review expressed their personal opinions in letters outside the system. This move has never been seen in the history of justice interpretation and constitutional judgment practice. The relevant content is only private legal opinions outside the trial and is not part of the content of the Constitutional Court's ruling. In addition, the way in which the relevant articles are included and presented in the private legal database is the editing work and academic judgment of private institutions, and there is no opinion on this.

Please read on...

It is understood that the content of the report questioned the legal opinions issued by the three people to the outside world, involving disputes over judicial ethics and copyright property rights, and requested that a self-discipline meeting be held and handed over to the political style unit for investigation. In the past, after the five justices reviewed and reached a verdict, all three of them issued separate "disagreeing legal opinions" to the public. However, after the Constitutional Court announced the latest verdict last week, the three were uncharacteristically silent and did not publish any more.

The three people's refusal to deliberate was due to the Legislative Yuan's amendment to the "Constitutional Procedure Law", which required at least ten justices to participate in the review and nine to agree to declare it unconstitutional. At that time, there were only eight justices left. Cai, Yang, and Zhu believed that the legal threshold was not reached and refused to participate; after the other five declared the law amendment unconstitutional last year, three still did not participate in the review.

According to the opinion system of the Constitutional Procedure Law, if the justices participate in the deliberation and have different opinions on the main text or reasons of the judgment, they can submit a formal "dissenting opinion" in accordance with the law. Cai, Yang, and Zhu did not participate in the review and were unable to submit a formal dissent. The "disagreement legal opinion" issued later was a personal legal opinion outside the adjudication process. The only difference between the two names is the word "law", but their legal nature is different.

Take the "115 Constitutional Judgment No. 6" issued on August 14 this year as an example. The "Opinions" column of the judgment on the official website of the Constitutional Court only contains the joint opinions of Justice Lu Tailang and Cai Caizhen; Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei did not participate in the review, and later jointly submitted a 64-page "Legal Opinion of Disagree".

This document has been included in "Legal Treatises" by Fayuan. To download the full text, you need to pay 256 points, one yuan per point. The source is marked as "provided by the author", and the author and authorizer are listed among three people. Many other legal opinions on judgments have also been included in paid treatises, some of which were published in "Taiwan Legal Person".