Lai Administration Attempts to Influence Grand Justices
United Daily News Commentary, December 23, 2025
Five grand justices of the Constitutional Court excluded the opinions of three fellow justices and ruled that the amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act were unconstitutional and void. Media reports have alleged that senior party and government figures had previously “communicated” with Grand Justice Tsai Tsung-chen. Chairman Huang Kuo-chang of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) criticized this, stating that if such lobbying did occur, it would constitute a criminal offense, and called on the Office of the President and the Executive Yuan to provide a public explanation. He also went today to the Taipei District Prosecutors Office to file a complaint. What is abnormal is that both the Office of the President and the Constitutional Court have said they will not respond, while the prosecution has adopted a stance of “no complaint, no action.” What exactly has gone wrong with this government?
As the Constitutional Court handed down its ruling invalidating the amendments to the Constitutional Litigation Act, media reports indicated that during this year’s large-scale recall battles, “three members of the Constitutional Court (referring to Tsai, Yang Hui-chin, and Chu Fu-mei) were on the same front.” The reports said that the Office of the President and the Executive Yuan then asked senior party and government figures with close ties to Grand Justice Tsai to communicate with her, but apparently hit a wall. The media also noted that when former President Tsai Ing-wen sought to nominate Tsai as a grand justice, there had already been opposition within the party, with critics arguing that Tsai’s stubborn personality might make her unsuitable for the position, yet she was ultimately nominated.
These reports not only suggest that the Constitutional Court’s ruling may involve judicial lobbying, but also subtly point the finger at former President Tsai Ing-wen, who nominated Tsai at the time. Even outsiders can sense that “the waters run deep.” However, unlike its past practice of responding immediately and forcefully, the Office of the President chose instead to say that it would not respond. The Secretariat of the Constitutional Court merely stated that “if there is a response, it will be issued in a unified manner,” and that it could not respond on Grand Justice Tsai’s behalf. In the face of such serious external “accusations,” the reactions of the Office of the President and the Constitutional Court are indeed unusual.
Chairman Huang identified the key issue, stating that if the media reports are true and senior officials from the Office of the President and the Executive Yuan engaged in lobbying of the judiciary, this would not only be a complete trampling of judicial independence but also a criminal act. All participants should bear political responsibility and resign, and prosecutors should immediately initiate an investigation. The TPP’s decision to file a complaint with the Taipei District Prosecutors Office today has in fact highlighted how passive the office has become in this case. Its once-bold performance in handling judicial lobbying cases is no longer to be seen.
In the past, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office proactively investigated cases involving judicial lobbying. The most notable example was the September political struggle in 2013, led by the Office of the President and Prosecutor General Huang Shih-ming. Although then-Speaker Wang Jin-pyng of the Legislative Yuan was ultimately not indicted, the prosecutors’ persistent investigative actions demonstrated a willingness to pursue the case step by step, showing no fear of the core of political power and a readiness to initiate investigations on their own initiative. Twelve years later, amid rampant rumors of lobbying grand justices and thunderous criticism in the legislature, the prosecution has remained unmoved, waiting for someone to ring the bell and file a complaint, inevitably giving the impression of decline.
On May 13 this year, the Legislative Yuan passed on third reading amendments to the Criminal Code adding the offense of “unlawful lobbying.” During the legislative process, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) also proposed its own stricter version, arguing that in addition to requests and lobbying, even exerting pressure should be punished. This proposal was rejected by Kuomintang (KMT) legislators on the grounds that its elements were insufficiently clear. Subsequently, the Executive Yuan neither sought reconsideration nor requested constitutional interpretation, and the Office of the President promulgated the law at the end of May. Now it appears ready for use. The DPP may have calculated everything, but perhaps did not expect this provision to be applied to itself first.
The newly added offense of “unlawful lobbying” targets those who exploit their office, status, or other influence to engage in improper lobbying or requests toward judges, prosecutors, or their supervisory superiors. Grand justices, in judicial review cases, also possess the status of judges. From the perspective of legal logic, grand justices fall within the scope of judicial independence protected by this offense and are regulated as “targets of lobbying.” Such lobbying or requests are naturally not permitted by law.
The offense of unlawful lobbying is subject to public prosecution. If the Taipei District Prosecutors Office were as bold as it once was, then it should have intervened proactively yesterday, without waiting for legislators to file complaints. Now that legislators have gone to the prosecutors’ office to lodge complaints today, how the prosecution will demonstrate its capabilities is something the entire public is watching closely.