2025.07.09國昌質詢｜黃國昌質疑大法官與司法院長被提名人蔡秋明如何領導司法院？從港版送中法案、預算、大法官違憲判決數度避答關鍵憲政問題立場前後不一看上意改口喪失原則？專業與中立性何在？

#國昌質詢

對於人事同意權審查，台灣民眾黨向來立場都沒有改變，因此，本次司法院正副院長及大法官人事同意權審查前，同樣依法發了問卷，請被提名人們回答，然而，非常遺憾，蔡秋明院長被提名人的答案，卻多與民進黨政府的官方聲明大同小異，並無

賴清德總統上任一年的民調，人民最不滿意的是司法改革，對此，我肯定蔡被提名人願意說要痛加檢討，然而，令人難以想像的是，一位被提名司法院院長的檢察官，卻連最基本司法院的預算都回答不出來。

依現行《民事訴訟法》的規定，上訴到第三審的案件，應經言詞辯論，但，當我詢問被提名人是否知道去年一整年最高法院民事言詞辯論案件有幾件時，同樣無法回答；在我說出只有離譜的5件，最高法院簡直把法律當空氣，詢問未來應如何改善此一長期存在的問題，被提名人只說要再來研究，並坦言自己不熟悉，這樣的回答，著實讓人震驚。

被提名人在面對自己法務部的老長官，前法務部部長邱太三關說司法，為富商喬事時，連表示立場的勇氣都沒有；曾任法務部國際及兩岸法律司司長的被提名人，在2019年2月香港提出逃犯條例立法時，第一時間的反應竟是樂見其成，遭香港的民運領袖痛批此說法不得其解，雖然如此，嗣後，國兩司在5月的聲明仍持續表達樂見與香港合作，直到6月蔡英文、賴清德接連發文痛批後，立場才180度大轉彎。更令我意想不到的是，前國兩司長，連有幾國跟我國簽訂引渡條約都無法回答！

當我詢問被提名人立委修法提高老農津貼是否違憲，得到的答案是基本沒有，奇怪的是，在國會說沒有違憲，回覆的問卷卻附和卓榮泰的說法，認為法律案增加政府支出違憲，原住民保留地禁伐補償條例的修法，被提名人同樣口頭沒有違憲，問卷卻又是另外一回事。

賴清德總統在日前團結十講第三講時曾說自己當了12年立委沒看過通過一個法律竟被判決違憲，我詢問被提名人是否贊成這樣的說法，同樣沒有得到答覆；去年，113憲判字第9號滑天下之大稽的判決，宣告《立法院職權行使法》第15條之2違憲，我詢問被提名人的看法，他則說表面上看起來沒有違憲，足證去年憲法法庭的判決有多麼荒謬，更可笑的是，此一條文正是賴清德在擔任立委時立法院通過的！此外，賴清德在擔任立委期間，制定《通訊保障及監察法》，監聽票由檢察官核發，釋字631號則重重打臉賴清德，宣告「通訊監察無法官保留違憲」。

一位被提名擔任司法院院長的被提名人，基本問題無法回答、面對老長官的違法濫權不敢有立場、專業盡失、屈從上意、嘴巴上說的跟問卷填寫的答案還可以不同，如此的人選，何以掌領司法院，率領我國司法改革繼續向前？

備詢：司法院長被提名人蔡秋明

資料與影片來源：【人事同意權審查】屈從上意的司法院長被提名人什麼都不懂的蔡秋明｜2025-7-9｜全院委員會 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oHnKEoxSP4 #黃國昌 #HuangKuoChang #taiwan #legislator #太離譜了

Translation:

The Taiwan People's Party(TPP) has consistently maintained a principled stance on the confirmation review of personnel appointments. In line with this commitment, we lawfully submitted questionnaires to nominees for the President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan(司法院), as well as Grand Justices, prior to their confirmation hearings. Regrettably, the responses provided by Presidential nominee Tsai Chiu-ming(蔡秋明) closely mirrored the official rhetoric of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party(DPP), raising concerns about his independence and alignment with public expectations.

One year into President William Lai's(賴清德) administration, judicial reform remains the area of greatest public dissatisfaction. While I commend Mr. Tsai for his willingness to reflect and his stated commitment to thorough examination, it is deeply concerning that a nominee for the highest judicial office—a former prosecutor—could not answer basic questions about the Judiciary's budget.

Under the current Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure(民事訴訟法), appeals to the third instance must be heard through oral proceedings. When asked how many such oral arguments the Supreme Court conducted in the past year, Mr. Tsai was unable to respond. The reality—that only five civil cases were heard orally—reveals the Supreme Court's effective disregard for this legal requirement. Yet, when pressed on how to address this longstanding violation, Mr. Tsai offered only vague assurances, stating the issue "requires further study" and claiming unfamiliarity—an alarming lack of preparation and leadership for a nominee to such a critical role.

When questioned about allegations of judicial interference involving former Justice Minister Chiu Tai-san(邱太三), a senior official from his own ministry, Mr. Tsai failed to take a principled stand, raising serious doubts about his independence and judgment.As former Director of the Department of International and Cross-Strait Legal Affairs(法務部國際及兩岸法律司), Mr. Tsai expressed support for Hong Kong's extradition bill in February 2019—a position that drew strong condemnation from Hong Kong's pro democracy activists. His department of International and Cross-Strait Legal Affairs continued to signal support for extradition cooperation with Hong Kong until May, reversing course only in June after sharp criticism from President Tsai Ing-wen(蔡英文) and then-Vice President William Lai. More concerningly, Mr. Tsai could not specify how many countries currently maintain extradition treaties with Taiwan.

When asked whether a legislative amendment to increase elderly farmer welfare allowances was unconstitutional, Mr. Tsai initially stated it was not. However, his written response contradicted this, aligning with Premier Premier Cho Jung-tai's(卓榮泰) view that such expenditure-increasing bills are unconstitutional. A similar inconsistency emerged regarding the Logging Ban Compensation for Lands Reserved for Indigenous Peoples Act(原住民保留地禁伐補償條例): while he verbally deemed the law constitutional, his written response suggested otherwise.

In his third address in the "Ten Lectures on National Unity"(團結國家十講), President Lai claimed that, during his 12 years as a legislator, he had never witnessed a law later declared unconstitutional. When asked whether he agreed with this statement, Mr. Tsai failed to provide a clear answer. This omission is particularly striking given Constitutional Court Judgment No.9 of 2024, which struck down Article 15-2 of the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan's Power(立法院職權行使法)—a provision enacted during Lai's tenure in the legislature. Astonishingly, Mr. Tsai claimed this provision "did not appear unconstitutional," a response that underscores the questionable nature of last year's Constitutional Court ruling.Furthermore, the Communication Security and Surveillance Act(通訊保障及監察法), drafted by Lai during his legislative tenure, granted prosecutors the authority to issue communications surveillance warrants without judicial oversight. This provision was later invalidated by Constitutional Interpretation No.631 for violating judicial review requirements.

How can a nominee for President of the Judicial Yuan—who cannot answer fundamental questions, fails to oppose abuses of power, lacks professionalism, succumbs to political pressure, and provides contradictory statements—be expected to lead the judiciary or advance meaningful judicial reform in Taiwan?

Official to answer interpellation：The nominee for Judicial Yuan president Tsai Chiu-ming(蔡秋明)

----------------

#黃國昌 #HuangKuoChang #台灣民眾黨 #立法院質詢 #國會監督 #揭弊 #TaiwanNews #立法院審查 #大法官提名 #司法院長提名 #蔡秋明 #司法改革 #賴清德政府 #司法信任危機 #憲政危機 #憲法法庭 #憲政職權 #立法院職權行使法 #逃犯條例 #通訊保障及監察法 #TaiwanPolitics #JudicialReform #TaiwanJudiciary

天佑好人

搜尋此網誌