On Thursday, the Executive Yuan approved draft amendments to the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) and the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選舉罷免法). The amendments would prohibit people who have been convicted of the following crimes from running for office: national security crimes, major offenses related to organized crime, bribery, money laundering, firearms, drugs and vote buying.
Advocated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the “anti-black bills,” in addition to addressing accusations of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) gangster activities, try to correct government officials’ behavior and regulate public offices.
Some have opposed the anti-black bills, claiming that such amendments are unconstitutional.
MISUNDERSTANDING
They must have misunderstood an interpretation of the Constitution. For example, in 2004, the Constitutional Court, then known as the Council of Grand Justices, ruled that an article in the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通管理處罰條例) that bans people who have been convicted of a crime from working as taxi drivers is constitutional.
Without passing the anti-black amendments, qualifying as a taxi driver would be a more rigorous process than qualifying as an elected official — a person in control of public institutions and responsible for a massive amount of taxpayers’ money.
LOOPHOLES
A legal system with such loopholes is completely unreasonable. So, how could the amendments be considered unconstitutional?
Constitutional Interpretation No. 584 states: “In considering the constitutionality of a limitation on the freedom of occupation, the standard of review varies with the content of the limitation. The legislature is allowed to set forth proper restrictions on the practice of an occupation such as its manner, time, place, target customers or content if such restrictions are necessary for the public interest.”
“Where the legislature intends to regulate the subjective qualifications necessary for choosing an occupation — such as knowledge and competency, age, physical condition, or moral standards — there must be a more important public interest than what is required for restrictions on the practice of an occupation, and the restrictions must be necessary for the achievement of such public interest,” it says.
Therefore, the Grand Justices declared that the exclusion of taxi drivers who have been convicted of specific crimes is constitutional.
As the amendments to the two acts propose banning ex-convicts of major crimes from running for office, such requirements of the “subjective qualifications necessary for choosing an occupation” are in compliance with the intent of Constitutional Interpretation No. 584.
PUBLIC INTEREST
For the sake of public interest, it is legitimate for the legislature to impose appropriate restrictions.
By amending the two acts to exclude certain ex-convicts from running in national or local elections, those individuals are prevented from trying to “cleanse” themselves by running for office.
The proposed amendments are meant for the public good, and they would regulate the quality of governmental officials. The anti-black bills are by all means constitutional.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and chairman of the Taiwan Forever Association.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Source: Taipei Times - Editorials 2022/12/19
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
