(Staff reporter) On Jun. 14, the Legislative Yuan approved at third reading the Judges Act that the Judicial Yuan had endeavored to push through for over two decades. The specific set of regulations on the diversity of judges’ appointment, protection, evaluation and exit mechanism that the entire country had waited all those years for was born at long last. The Act includes 103 articles divided in 11 chapters and the key regulations are as follows:
1. Protection of judges’ positions and transfer regulation
Unless convicted of insurrection, treason or dereliction of duty, judges may not be deposed from office. Unless having committed serious criminal offenses or been given severe disciplinary sanctions, losing the ROC citizenship, concurrently holding a foreign nationality, declared bankrupt with the civil rights not yet restored, or proved unfit for their duties due to psychological disorder, judges may not be suspended. Without their consent, judges may not be transferred to other positions. Except when new courts are established, courts are merged or changes in personnel quota occur, judges may not be transferred between districts or instance levels.
2. Exclusion of judges from the civil servant rank and grade systems and pay guarantee
Judges are excluded from the civil servant rank and grade systems while the pay items, level and points of judges as well as the calculation and payment standards are clearly stipulated to heighten the willingness of senior judges to remain in lower level instances. Also, the years of service and retirement age of judges are combined in calculation of retirement pensions to ensure that a sufficient pension is provided to allow retired judges to maintain their living standards.
3. Improvement of the mechanism for elimination of unfit judges
The parties and victims of crimes may file a petition to the local bar association or the national bar association, a foundation, or an incorporated association to request to the Judges Evaluation Commission to conduct individual case assessment. When judges are found as requiring disciplinary sanctions, the cases will be transferred to be reviewed by the Control Yuan and then to be deliberated by the duty court.
4. Increase of causes calling for evaluation of individual cases
Evidence found showing intentional or serious misconduct that has led to significant misjudgment or crucial damage to the interests of concern parties in cases already concluded or remaining unresolved for over six years since the first instance, or serious violation of the due procedure or duty regulations, deferral of the proceeding of cases without justifiable causes, violation of juristic ethics, and so on that have resulted in serious consequences are all listed as causes calling for evaluation of the judges in question.
5. Appointment of members of the Judicial Personnel Council and the Judges Evaluation Commission from External Sources
A. The Judicial Personnel Council shall consist of the president of the Judicial Yuan and 11 members appointed by the president of the Judicial Yuan, 12 elected representatives from among the judges and 3 scholars and specialists. The Ministry of Justice and the National Bar Association shall recommend three scholars and specialists each to be selected by the president of the Judicial Yuan.
B. The Judges Evaluation Commission shall consist of three judges, one prosecutor, three lawyers, and four scholars and private individuals of decent and just characters.
6. Establishment of the system for full performance evaluation of judges and court groups
The Judicial Yuan is required to conduct full performance evaluation of judges at least one every three years. The results shall not be publicly disclosed but will be applied as references in judge duty assessment.
7. Establishment of the duty court to deliberate on disciplinary sanctions for judges and related matters
The chairperson of the Commission on the Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries shall serve as the presiding judge of the duty court and form the collegiate panel with four senior judges. The duty court is responsible for deliberation on disciplinary sanctions for judges as well as remedial measures for identity protection and disobedience to duty supervision. The duty court shall adopt single level and single instance procedures and oral arguments.
8. Restriction on job change of sanctioned judges to become lawyers
Judges removed from their positions are deprived of their civil servant status and those discharged shall be disallowed to become lawyers.
|
