Issues Regarding the Detention of Former President Chen Shui-bian as a Criminal Defendant

Ministry of Justice

Issues Regarding the Detention of Former President Chen Shui-bian as a Criminal Defendant

1.Is the pretrial detention of the defendant violating his human rights?

The question that should be asked is whether the defendant’s detention was conducted according to the law.

According to Articles 101-121, Chapter 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge or a panel of three judges presides over a hearing, in which the defendants and their attorneys will be informed of the alleged crimes charged by the prosecutors and the evidence that warrants detention. If the motion to detain the defendant is approved by the presiding justice of the district court, the defendants and their lawyers may appeal to a higher court.

This law applies to all citizens of this land, without exception.

2.Is former President Chen, Shui-bian being politically targeted with this prosecution?

This is not the case. Saying so hardly does any justice to the prosecutors, judges and even our entire judiciary and justice system that have devoted innumerable resources and energy to this corruption case involving the former President, his family, and his close associates.

Furthermore, some of the co-defendants in these corruption cases, including his wife and former deputy chief of staff, were indicted during the second term of the former President. The legal ground for delaying the indictment of former President Chen is because the ROC Constitution grants immunity to an incumbent President, except in cases of treason or sedition, from legal prosecution or criminal investigation. Therefore, the investigation against the former President has only recently been allowed to proceed after the end of his presidency on May 20th. Therefore, the fact that the case is proceeding under the Ma administration is merely a coincidence. This does not support the allegation of political targeting.

3.Was it political retribution to detain and handcuff the former President?

It is standard legal procedure to handcuff defendants in order to ensure their safe and secure transportation. This rule applies to everyone without exception.

However, during the hearing, former President Chen claimed to his political supporters that his arm had been injured and demanded to go to National Taiwan University Hospital. Because he was the former President, Chen received special attention and treatment that would have otherwise not been granted. He was escorted by two judges and three prosecutors to the hospital and stayed there for several hours. Doctors from Surgery and Physiatrics were called to examine him, and they found no physical injury perceivable by the naked eye except the former President’s claim that it was painful when he flexed his muscle. After the detention hearing, the formal President was permitted to be escorted to jail un-handcuffed because of his supposed arm injury.

TV reporters that surrounded the Justice Building and the Hospital had recorded everything. The transparency of the entire procedure will attest to and ensure the equal and just treatment of the case against former President Chen.

4. Was the detention of former President Chen a sort of political gift presented to mainland visitor Mr. Chen, ju-lin.

That is not true. Our law stipulates that prosecutors and judges work completely separately and independently of the executive branch. Political intervention is out of the question.

5. Is Mr. Chen’s hunger-strike in protest against any human right violations?

It will be in vain to employ a hunger-strike to protest against prosecutors and judges. The only way for a defendant to voice his cause is through the due process of law, which is to argue the case on the basis of evidence.

6. Is the new KMT government persecuting former DPP high ranking officials?

The justice and judiciary system and the prosecutors and judges under that system are completely independent of the executive branch.

The Special Investigation Task Force is now handling the former President’s case. The SITF was established during the former President’s second term.

The prosecutors and judges prosecuting and trying the corruption cases involving DPP political figures are all career public servants, not political appointees. Therefore, to suggest that they are the political tool of the KMT government has absolutely no factual basis.

Pertaining to these cases, the question to ask is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the guilt of the defendants. The key is truth and nothing but the truth. Political charges are unlikely to divert the prosecutors’ attention away from the corruption cases per se.

7. Is this the retreat of democracy in Taiwan because there are more DPP political figures being detained than those of the KMT?

The DPP was the ruling party from 2000-2008. Thus, logically, DPP officials had more opportunities to be embroiled in corruption cases than if they were the opposition. The DPP/KMT detention ratio does not indicate any retreat of Taiwan’s democracy. In truth, Taiwan’s democracy has been well consolidated with the second turnover of ruling parties.

8. Is the justice and judiciary system affected and influenced by politics, which in fact mirrors the greater political power struggle that goes on?

The law provides that prosecutors and judges shall work separately and independently from the executive branch. The present case that involves the former President, his family, and his former associates is being handled in accordance with due process, as the law prescribes. There is no political meddling at all.

9. Should the prosecutors indict the former President as soon as possible to protect Taiwan’s image and reputation?

A few months ago, the special investigation task force team of prosecutors announced that they intended to complete the investigation before the end of this year. We will wait and see what evidence they can present to the public and not speculate on unproven allegations.

10. Is it a strategy of the incumbent government to divert the attention of the people away from its performance by initiating corruption investigations against high-ranking officials of the previous government?

This is an interesting allegation. First of all, no one is sure that there even is a “diversion” effect in this regard. Second, the government’s attitude is “justice, and justice for all.” Themis, the goddess of justice, is blindfolded to interests—in Taiwan’s case, Blue or Green. The rule of law has to be established and treasured in a growing democracy like Taiwan. Our law provides that the justice and judiciary system will be independent of the executive branch, which is exactly what is being practiced in the current case.

11. Is the subsequent detention of former DPP officials a return to the old days of Martial Law?

As aforementioned, the due process regarding the detention of defendants has been rendered to the detainees. We now have to wait for the prosecutors to present sufficient evidence to the courts. There is no doubt that the trial will be conducted under complete transparency and in accordance with the law. Taiwan has already undergone two turnover of ruling parties. Democratic values are deeply engrained in the hearts and minds of the people. Therefore, we have already achieved a level of democratic development whereby no political party or figure can possibly return Taiwan back to the old days of Martial Law.

12. Why is there a continuous disclosure of insider information of these criminal cases; is the new government revealing this information on purpose?

Once again, the criminal cases are handled by prosecutors and judges who work independently and separately from the executive branch. If those who are handling these criminal cases disclose information not allowable by law, that is a criminal offence and will be prosecuted accordingly.

The news media is protected by freedom of the press. Therefore, unless there is solid evidence showing a violation of criminal law, no government action will be taken against them.

Attachment : none