(Staff Reporter)
The Judge Personnel Reform Results Evaluation Committee convened on February 10th, 2012 its 8th meeting, presided over by Judicial Yuan Vice President Su Yeong-chin, to discuss the judge promotion and transfer system.
Director Liang Hong-zhe of the Department of Personnel first briefed on the principle of promotion and transfer as indicated in the Judges Act as well as explained the solutions to problems in selection of judges for the court of highest instance, adjustment in appointment of judges of lower instance courts to higher instance courts, minimization of the impact of judge transfer on case closure, and excess of alternate and intern judges in courts with insufficient numbers of judges. He also presented for discussion the issues regarding the choice between conditional transfer and case assignment, whether alternate judges were to be immediately assigned duties in a court of higher instance after enforcement of Subparagraph 1, Paragraph 3, Article 9 of the Judges Act, the future approaches of promotion and transfer of judges in line with the policy of diversified appointment of judges as set forth in the Judges Act, and how to solve problems in the promotion and transfer of judges of specialized courts.
Judicial Yuan Secretary-General Lin Ching-fang indicated that the number of cases revoked and remanded by the Supreme Court had dropped significantly but the rate of superseding decisions it was making still needed improvement. Failure to provide the reasons for revocation in one complete statement or remanding without investigation could cause repeated remandment. The point was whether judges really meant to close cases. As for promotion and transfer, protection of people’s right of action was the highest principle. Under that principle, judicial autonomy or individual volition had to be set aside. Therefore, it would be necessary to examine whether direct appointment to a court of higher instance was more feasible than conditional transfer or temporary assignment. In addition, specialized courts or divisions should be created in courts of higher instance, duty assignment that could jeopardize people’s right of action had to be restricted, and judges appointed through diversified measures had to be treated fairly to ensure the right expertise was practiced in the right places.
In the end, Vice President Su commented that judicial reform involved many complicated issues that were interrelated. They had to be weighed macroscopically in order to identify the approaches with the least negative impact and carry them out on the existing basis. That was why the Judicial Yuan had convened four committees to evaluate the results of judicial reform in different areas. Judging by the number of judges in the court of highest instance, the numbers of judges in the supreme courts of Japan and Korea were small and there was no need to reduce them. Perhaps the litigation system should be revised before the personnel system could be adjusted. It would be more practical and feasible.
|
