The design of this questionnaire refers to the controversy of the 114th year Constitutional Judgment No. 1, made by the Constitutional Court on December 19, 114th year of the Republic (2025), regarding the amendment to the “Constitutional Procedure Act” of the Republic of China.
At that time, among the 8 Grand Justices, only 5 (Lu Tai-lang, Hsieh Ming-yang, Tsai Tsai-chen, Chen Chung-wu, Yu Po-hsiang) participated in the deliberation and declared the amendment unconstitutional. The other 3 Grand Justices (Tsai Tsung-chen, Yang惠欽, Chu Fu-mei) issued statements questioning that the judgment procedure was illegal and void ab initio, triggering a huge constitutional crisis and social public opinion discussion in the country.
【Survey Introduction】
At the end of the 114th year of the Republic (2025), our country broke out a constitutional crisis unprecedented since the founding of democracy and the rule of law.
The two opposition parties, Blue and White, amended the law to increase the deliberation threshold for Grand Justices, aiming to ensure that major constitutional interpretations possess broad consensus. However, in a situation where Lai Ching-te could not propose excellent candidates for Grand Justices, it resulted in the Constitutional Court once stalling due to insufficient numbers.
However, on December 19, in a situation where there were only 5 Grand Justices, failing to reach the statutory threshold of 10 people, they deliberated on their own and declared the amendment to the “Constitutional Procedure Act” unconstitutional and void.
This move sparked a fierce debate in the legal community:
Some believe this was a necessary act to break the deadlock in the parliament and maintain the operation of the Constitution; others criticized this as “5 people overriding the law,” disrupting the Constitution and governance, and being a “Constitutional Monster” that destroys the division of national powers.
This questionnaire aims to collect the public’s views on this major constitutional event.
Your opinion will help understand the expectations of the citizens for judicial justice and the rule of law.
Part 1: Awareness and Basic Stance
- Do you know about the event in December 2025 where 5 Grand Justices, with only 8 incumbents, made a ruling that the “Constitutional Procedure Act” was unconstitutional on their own?
- (A) Very clear, following closely
- (B) Have heard of it, but don’t know the details
- (C) Completely unaware
- Regarding “whether 5 Grand Justices can declare a law unconstitutional under the condition of not meeting the legal quorum,” what is your preliminary impression?
- (A) Support; Grand Justices should proactively break the deadlock between the executive and legislative branches.
- (B) Question; the quorum threshold stipulated by law should be strictly observed.
- (C) Angry; believe this is the self-expansion and bullying of judicial power.
- (D) No opinion / Don’t understand
Part 2: Constitutional Values and Procedural Controversy
- The other 3 Grand Justices (Tsai Tsung-chen, Yang Hui-chin, Chu Fu-mei) publicly declared the judgment “void”; which side do you tend to support?
- (A) Support the 5 Grand Justices who participated in the judgment: Defending the operation of the Constitution is more important than procedural details.
- (B) Support the 3 Grand Justices who raised objections: The procedure is illegal, and the judgment should be regarded as void.
- (C) Both sides have points; the Constitutional Court has fallen into a split and is difficult to trust.
- Some people describe these 5 Grand Justices as “Constitutional Monsters” or “Overlords”; do you agree with this statement?
- (A) Greatly agree; power is completely out of balance.
- (B) Partially agree; their behavior is indeed controversial.
- (C) Disagree; this is a self-protection act in the face of a parliamentary boycott.
- (D) This is just political language, no comment.
Part 3: Impact on the Future of Democracy
- What do you think might be the greatest harm of this “5-person judgment” to Taiwan’s democracy and rule of law? (Multiple choice)
- □ Collapse of judicial credibility; people no longer trust judgments.
- □ Imbalance in the separation of powers; judicial power over-interferes with legislative power.
- □ Long-term confrontation between the Legislative Yuan and the Judicial Yuan; the political situation becomes more chaotic.
- □ No harm; this instead solved the problem of the parliament deliberately paralyzing the judiciary.
- Regarding the future appointment and authority of Grand Justices, which of the following reform plans do you support?
- (A) It should be strictly stipulated that Grand Justices must have a professional background in public law.
- (B) The consensus level for the appointment of Grand Justices should be increased (e.g., requiring consent from more than 2/3 of the parliament).
- (C) It should be explicitly forbidden for Grand Justices to carry out constitutional interpretation on laws “related to their own duties” (recusal principle).
- (D) Maintain the status quo; trust the professional judgment of the Grand Justices.
【Respondent Basic Information】
- Age: ____
- Gender: Male, Female
- Occupation: ____
- Political inclination (optional): (Pan-Blue / Pan-Green / Neutral / Other)