1993 2010 3 i
ii
Abstract The long-term development of a democratic country stems from the establishment of a civil society. The substance and functional mechanisms of a democratic system are very closely connected with the state of the legal system. When the law rests on a basis of democracy, democratic legitimacy underpins the legality of the source of the country's power. In contrast, when the law and democracy have an equivalent relationship, especially under the influence of today's international social consensus and the growing human rights consciousness and social modernization, in the developmental process of the constitutional system, with regard to the people's fundamental rights, the quality of the judicial system and the law will determine the country's ability to realize a modern welfare state and reveal the objective value of a civil society with regard to human dignity; we can then deduce the reasonableness the judicial system must show in the face of objective conditions, which is the basis for the judicial system to represent judicial justice and judicial authority. Taiwan's judicial system has undergone extremely rapid reforms in recent years. The judicial system's interpretation of constitutional principles has led to clear acknowledgement that violations of the principle of equal protection by human rights values and rights and protections suggest that the law is inadequate. This confirms the equal basis of human dignity and rights. In particular, it is necessary to construct a trial system and suit procedures befitting a democratic society. The Judicial Yuan started holding judicial reform committee conferences and national judicial reform conferences in 1993. These conferences brought judicial, prosecutorial, defense, and academic personnel together for far-ranging discussions. The conclusions of the conferences, along with specific reform measures and their timetables, will help meet the challenges of the new century and accelerate judicial reform. A pyramid-shaped suit system and court organization will realize the Judicial Yuan's role as the highest i
judicial agency and achieve the constitutional intent of institutionalizing the trial system. The three-stage reform framework calls for the merger of agencies and revision of laws. The reforms will also entail the transformation of a "diverse, multi-track" system into a "unified, single-track" system. After the third stage has been completed in 2010, the judicial system will have an all new look, and will be ready to safeguard the people's judicial beneficiary rights. The main purpose of this study is to explore the major changes undergone by Taiwan's judicial system in recent years. These include the change in criminal suit procedures from the traditional inquisitorial system to the improved adversarial system, which serves to strengthen protection of defendants' fundamental human rights. The thorough implementation of the assumption of innocence conforms to the world's trend towards protection of human rights. The institution of a speedy trial system improves trial efficiency. Strengthening the factual review function of the first instance, changing the purpose of the second instance to subsequent review, the use of the third instance for strict legal review, the adoption of a appeal permit system, and various systematic reforms have truly meaningful. In a time of progressive democratic reforms, the practice of law must be comprehensive, feasible, and appropriate if overall reforms are to be completed. Judicial reform can strengthen maintenance of the constitutional order and the protection of fundamental human rights. Keywords: judicial system, trial system, human dignity, fundamental human rights, adversarial system, inquisitorial system ii
1 1 3 6 8 9 12 12 14 17 18 20 22 23 24 28 28 29 32 34 34 45 48 50 50 51 55 i
60 60 70 76 83 85 94 105 108 115 121 122 124 125 126 128 129 132 ii
3-2-1 42 3-2-2 43 3-2-3 44 4-1-1 80 4-1-2 81 iii
1 2 3 4 1 1995 5 20 1997 2 2003. 2002 2002 Human rights infrastructure-building for a Human Rights State-2002 Human Rights Policy White Paper of the Republic of China2002 10 58-59 3 1994 4 1999 1999 3 1-41 1
5 6 7 5 1998 7 1-71 6 2 56-62 7 1999 3 1-2 http://www.judicial.gov.tw/ /judga-2.htm 2
8 9 10 8 91 1 20 1068 1069 2 9 1-72 10 3
11 12 13 Judicial Independence 11 Roger K.Warren 92 1 17 1119 2003 1 1-2 12 2 13 (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) ;(3) (4) (5) 15 2 2004 2 111-112 4
14 15 decisional independence 16 instituional independence 14 1985 2 76-77 15 See An Independent Judiciary-Report of the ABA on Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence,at http://www.abanet.org/goveaffairs/judiciary/html. 16 Roger K.Warren 92 1 17 1119 2003 1 2-3 5
17 18 17 18 91 7 7 1093 2002 7 2 6
19 1999 7 6 32 19 2 58 7
20 21 20 1999 7 3-74 21 2002 6 66-74 8
1999 7 22 1999 22 1 9
.. 10
23 1945 417419-420 11
24 1 1998 10 16-36 25 1 33 12
6 1 2 3 4 2 3 5 2 3 1 1 1996 5 31-32 26 1994 9 6 1-7 27 1996 5 1389-1391 13
28 1256 29 29 23 1 2 9 3 7 4 4 4 1 5 3 30-39 30 83 10 19 84 10 28 19 31 3 32 32 5 1257 14
33 1999 11 1581 34 1518-1521 15
37 35 1999 7 13 8 28 21 18 25 9 3 125 12 57 2003 3 7 11 1581-1583 36 1999 3 4 37 16
38 38 33 1518-1521 39 21 2000 11 52 17
40 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 21 2000 11 22Francis Snyder, Law and Development in the Light of Dependency Theory, 14 Law and Society Review,pp.731-732(1980) 41 1 18
42 Die Dritte Gewalt 77 78 43 86 44 396 45 262 46 436 19
47 11 24 7 22 33 37 38 27 9 21 55 34 4 7 33 35 48 51 54 91 35 1 17 16 19 34 36 45 50 57 12 19 63 58 4 10 34 35 69 6 29 21 26 27 34 35 45 49 50 51 56 63 87 5 78 12 22 115 88 2 3 11 12 33 34 49 51 73 75 66 1 66 4 90 1 17 15 34 103 106 90 5 23 66 79 48 1 1997 4 330-350 20
21
49 86 77 50 3 2 13 15 6-7 22
51 1975 1 12 52 23
53 4 54 2002 10 319-320 24
55 1 466 427 436 8 376 4 451 451 1 1 455 1 25
56 530 57 396 26
Gerechtigkeitsstaat der materiale Rechtsstaat 58 58 63 2000 6 129-161 27
59 1999 11 475 28
60 83 12 10 83 22246 84 1 1 85 1 14 85 00841 85 1 1 1998 7 7 61 83 10 1 3 (1) (2) (3) 33 888 62 1954 10 2-3 29
originalism 64 63 249-444 64 530 2002 7 773-793 65 452-457 30
66 rule-making power 4 1997 3 51-52 67 1 916-934 68 1 928-934 69 14 1999 12 168-170 31
70 1 71 14 1999 12 172-173 32
1998 72 1 33
73 7-8 74 1998 10 224-233 75 2002 1 16-17 81 2002 2 52-53 530 32 2002 3 125-146 34
76 1 10 1084-1085 77 1 3 1947 10 1086-1090 78 1. 2. 10 1090-1091 35
79 77 1994 10 1 1995 10 80 79 1995 11 3 10 1363-1364 80 1 36
1999 7 81. (1) (2) (3) 81 183-184 82 10 886-887 37
. (1) (2) (3). (1) (2). 13 15. (1) (2) (3) 3 1999 7 38
83. (1) 77 (2) (3) 83 1 39
84 (4) 85. (1) (2) (3) 86 (4) (5) 84 1 1 10 909-915 85 10 1010-1011 86 911-912 40
87. 88 (1) (2) 89 87 1012-1013 88 920-921 89 6 41
( ) ( ) -- 42
-- 43
-- 2002 11 20 44
86 1982 175 77 78 82 45
50 530 90 10 5 530 90 46
91 77 436 2003 7 30-31 47
Verfassungsorgsn 92 98 2003 6 49-66 48
49
legislative powerexecutive power John Lock 1689 Two Treatieses of Government Montesquieu 1748 DE LÈSPRIT DES LOISThe Spirit of the Laws 93 Rousseau 1762 93 Montesquieu 2000 1 50
The Social Contract 94 separation of governmental power (1) (2) (3) (4) 17-68 94 J.S.McClelland 2000 2 267-367 51
1998 77-82 95 1 1997 4 331-336 96 2003 10 331-341 52
Conseil superieure de la magistrature Ľindépendance de ľautorite judiciaire 97 64 Art.64-Le président est garant de ľindépendance de ľautorite judiciaire. Il est assisté par le Conseil supérieur de magistrature. Une loi organique porte statut des magistrats. Les magistrats du siége sont inamovibles. 2002 11 162 98 99 166-168 53
54
External Independence Internal Independence 100 100 Roger K.Warren 2003 1 17 Judicial Independence and Accountability 1119 2003 1 29 2-3 55
101 2003 7 75 102 77 452 457 86 56
103 392 104 436 57
58
menschenwüyrde 105 442 512 59
106 2004 5 107 443 445 14 60
61
16 418 466 62
418 466 1999 7 530 63
108 109 110 108 1992 4 19 109 4 2004 5 106 110 97 2003 5 8-14 64
89 2 9 92 2 7 89 447 111 196 276 111 447 4 (1) (2) 196 2 (3) 268 (4) 92 1 14 4 6 65
92 466 4 469 1 447 92 66
112 113 114 16 112 1993 125-129 113 97 2003 5 8-27 114 Rechtsstaat rule of law 67
115 116 20 2 3 525 20 2 3 574 115 116 105 2004 2 120-143 68
117 118 117 39 118 1999 (1). (2). (3). (4). (5). 1999 11 1659-1661 69
119 120 121 119 91 8 93 3 50.25% 52.99% 50.25% 5% 45.37% 52.25% 45.37% 10% 5 10% 1182 1 120 574 396 442 512 121 16 393 396 418 442 512 70
122 2003 11 403-404 71
123 306-307 124 2003 11 405-410 125 447 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 6 72
Sprungrevision 73
126 126 127 55 2004 2 13-15 74
128 2003 2 284-285 54 2004 1 49-55 75
384 due process of law 76
Das rechtliche Gehör 82 1 103 Vor Gericht hat jedermann Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör 6 482 16 129 129 2003 11 59-60 77
2. Der Anspruch auf ein faires Verfahren 6 103 16 16 8 prozessökonomie 130 130 78
1993 2002 2002 27,736 21,985 0.57% 4.72% 1993 99.60% 2002 130.49 131 1997 2 164-165 131 14 2003 6 23 79
4-1-1 82 16330 3059 13271 12597 2733 99.60 83 17766 3733 14033 13499 4267 113.48 84 19833 4267 15566 15148 4685 108.55 85 21645 4685 16960 16628 5017 108.59 86 23241 5017 18224 17438 5803 105.30 87 23551 5803 17748 17447 6104 115.58 88 26099 6104 19995 19566 6533 114.11 89 27479 6533 20946 20543 6936 121.73 90 27579 6936 20643 20994 6585 129.95 91 27736 6585 21151 21985 5751 130.49 91 90 (%) 0.57-5.06 2.46 4.72-12.67 0.42 2003.6 23 1993 2002 27.64 32.41 2002 22.13 18.71 33.36 1993 17.70 2002 19.05 1993 80
39.15 2002 24.39 132 4-1-2 82 64289 31.64 12597 17.70 51692 39.15 83 65311 32.41 13499 19.08 51812 39.62 84 61840 29.06 15148 18.59 46692 35.57 85 61528 27.82 16628 18.81 44900 33.82 86 66878 29.11 17438 18.40 49440 36.62 87 67039 28.11 17447 17.75 49592 35.37 88 65232 26.16 19566 19.09 45666 31.10 89 64612 25.50 20543 19.56 44069 29.70 90 65426 24.47 20994 19.06 44432 28.27 91 60328 22.13 21985 19.05 38343 24.39 91 90 (%) -7.79-9.56 4.72-0.05-13.70-13.72 2003.6 25 132 25 81
133 2002 8 2003 3 1975 Entlastungsgesetz 427 133 41 2004 6 23-25 82
1995 83
Inquisitorial System Accusatorial System 134 Non-Adversary System Adversary System 135 136 137 134 135 3 1983 6 16-17 1970 1 7 1986 4 7-8 1988 136 43 4 1999 8 32-63 21 9 2001 11 16-45 137 2002 2002 10 58-59 84
1999 2002 2 138 138 85
Presumption of Innocence 139 Legalitätsprinzip Generalprävention 11 1 14 6 2 139 2001 8 21 86
Beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of Evidence 140 161 163 1 141 142 2002 161 1 140 1 1999 8 386 141 1 2001 8 14-23 142 2002 2002 10 56-62 87
11 1 143 163 2 144 143 154 159 144 100 2003 9 74-76 88
Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit 145 Mündlichkeitsprinzip Grundsatz der Öffentlichkeit Konzentrationsmaxime 147 145 (!) (2) (3) 1984 2 16 21 6 2001 11 17 146 16 21 6 18-19 147 3 2003 9 167-174 89
148 90% 149 150 148 21 6 2001 11 21-24 149 21 7 2001 11 76-79 150 2003 8 128 151 55 82 147 66-76 152 418 90
2003 2 6 449 2 153 44 91
154 154 1 2003 9 67-84 92
155 1999 7 2004 3 155 93
156 157 16 156 42 5 1 157 396 442 94
158 273 194 3 158 302 442 1 2003 10 372-373 95
1 159 fruit of the poisonous tree 89 829 Doctrine of Tainteu Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Exclusionary Rule of Evidence 155 2 159 160 75 933 131 96
159 hearsay rule 160 2 Cross Examination 160 23 7 2003 11 84-88 97
Right to confronted with the witnesses against him 161 2001 8 4 22 9 2002 11 8-9 22 13 2002 11 10-18 162 148 14-18 98
163 164 165 163 Wigmore,On Evidence,$1362,4 vol 164 166 167 (1) 166 (2) (3) (4) 145 11-12 165 19 99
1921 309 1928 286 1935 273 1967 166 166 384 8 1 23 167 166 1200 2 2004 9 167 384 209-216 100
379 10 87 347 384 28 3 220-228 66 38 101
168 379 10 14 169 168 169 21 10 2001 11 104-109 102
170 171 170 1061 122-134 171 13 1 2001 8 129-136 103
172 375 172 1999 13 15 1999 7 26 59-61 104
173 173 1063 105
174 2001 11 21 175 21 15 2001 11 231-232 176 23 106
177 2000 7 1127-1128 178 1 2000 12 954-962 179 2 180 243 181 2000 7 1131 107
182 339 1285 50 98 183 187 201 243 266 312 323 184 20 108
185 228 243 266 295 338 395 396 430 186 466 109
. 110
187 1950 23 1981 2153 93 188 77 530 189 111
190 2004 6 9 191 224 16 112
192 1 1999 6 52-54 193 201 243 266 298 308 312 323 338 395 433 446 483 194 25 26 77 113
243 298 114
298 77 195 583 196 115
197 1 1999 6 55 198 2000 12 856-860 199 2 2000 7 797-810 200 2002 3 1 235-282 201 116
2000 7 2 914-955 202 1999 1 15 2 3 2001 1 1 8 175 203 2002 3 286-290 204 2002 3 288 205 384 396 409 491 117
206 243 2000 7 2 1056 207 368 395 384 396 418 208 170 297 446 448 118
Selbskontrolle 209 1935 10 4 1937 1 8 1970 12 23 1979 12 7 1995 1 16 1998 10 28 2000 6 14 210 1 1 211 2000 1 27-28 1999 6 183-184 119
120
212 50 2004 4 27-30 213 Justitia debet esse et celeris,quia dilatio est quaedam negatio 530 466 422 546 214 121
215 2-3 122
216 1999 11 1497-1498 123
217 Roger K.Warren 1121 2-3 124
125
218 1202 1203 1204 2004 9 23 126
decisional indepence institutional independence 221 222 219 1985 2 76-77 220 1997 2 163-164 221 See An Independent Judiciary-Report of the ABA on Separation of Powera and Judicial Independence,at http://www.abanet.org/govaffairs/judiciary/html. 1982 10 22 The International Bar Association <>The International Bar Associational Code of Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence 46 1 2001 1 1-3 222 15-18 127
128
129
130
Habermas - -66 131
Franz Michael.1998.Law:A Tool of Power,Human Rights in the People Republic of China Internatuonal Commission of Jurists.1966.The Rule of Law and Human Rights Ruti G.Teitel James R.Maxeiner,2003,Different Roads to the Rule of Law:Their Importance for Law Reform in Taiwan 19 159-194 Roger K.Warren 132