Civil Society Organizations’ Concerns about the Bill of Abuse of Congressional Powers

On May 17 and 21, the Legislative Yuan totally disregarded procedural due process with several attempts to pass three bills by forcing the 3rd reading on the floor, including the Law Governing Legislative Yuan’s Powers and the Contempt of Congress provision in the Criminal Code. In response, more than fifty CSOs, including the Taiwan Citizen Front, Taiwan Economic Democracy Union, the Referendum Protecting Taiwan Alliance, and Doublethink Lab launched the "Abuse of Congressional Powers, Regression of Democracy, People Assemble to Rescue Legislative Yuan" campaign, demanding that the three bills be sent back to the respective committees for reconsideration. In our action on the 21st, we provided a thorough explanation why the process of forcing the passage of the legislation by the two major political parties is a serious violation of procedural due process. At the press conference today, we will further explain to the public the extent of these bills, which will not only undercut the principle of separation of powers but also cause a serious infringement of the rights of people, the private sector, and civil society organizations.

As we reviewed the legislative Plenary sessions in the past two days, the provisions of the "Re-Motion" proposed by Huang Guo-Chang passed by the joint effort of the KMT and TPP would have the huge negative impact on the public such as— Article 25 expands the legislative interpellation rights to allow each individual legislator to obtain the information of private sectors and CSOs from officials, thus creating a "super interpellation right." Article 47, which renames the right of access to information as investigation right, extends its investigative scope beyond the civil servants to include the private sector. Moreover, there is no necessary protective measures for personal data, privacy, and trade secrets of the people, businesses, and civic groups. According to Hsu Kuan-tse, Deputy Secretary-General of the Economic Democracy Union, the super interpellation powers of legislators create the "legislator investigation authority by any single legislator." Such rights, which unfound in the legal systems of other democratic countries, may lead to legislators abusing their powers for personal gain, consequently undercutting the rights of individuals, private enterprises, and civil society organizations.

Hsu Kuan-tse stated that after the revision of Article 25 of the Law Governing Legislative Yuan’s Powers, legislators' right of interpellation to officials has become a "super interpellation right." This allows legislators to request information from officials, including data held by public institutions on individuals, private enterprises, or CSOs. Officials cannot refuse to provide the information unless they obtain permission from the meeting chairperson; or they will face impeachment, disciplinary action, and fines.

Hsu emphasized that the existing right of access to information for legislators cannot be initiated unless the decision is made collectively by the Plenary Sitting or the respective committees, not by individual legislators. However, under the revised "super interpellation right," any single legislator can forcibly require cabinet members and senior officials to provide information, including data from the private sector. This could lead to legislators abusing their power for personal gain, thereby harming the rights of individuals, private sector, and civil society organizations. There have been incidents in the past where legislators acted as corporate gatekeepers, intervening in the management of corporations or targeting specific companies to undermine their competitiveness. For instance, Legislator Fu Kun-Chi, Majority Whip of the KMT, was sentenced by the court for his involvement in corporate legal disputes. Allowing any single legislators like Fu to exercise investigation right would put individuals, corporations, and CSOs at the mercy of these "super legislators."

Furthermore, the revised Article 25 distinguishes between "respondents"- any individual in answering a question raised in an interpellation, and "government officials." It is evident that the term "respondents" as used in this provision is not limited to government officials; rather, it refers to those mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 67 of the Constitution, including both civil servants and individuals related to social matters. This creates a situation where, without undergoing a formal investigation or the initiation of procedures by the respective committees and task forces, each respective committee of the Legislative Yuan can demand that private citizens comply with the interpellation process stipulated in Article 25. Individual legislators can also require private citizens to provide information during the interpellation sessions of the respective committees. If private citizens fail to provide the requested information, they can be fined up to NT$200,000. It is totally absurd in a democracy today. Even more concerning is that such fines are solely decided by the Legislative Yuan. If the Executive Yuan abuses its authority, it is overseen by the Legislative Yuan and the Control Yuan. But which governmental branch can oversee the Legislative Yuan if it abuses its authority? Are the legislators willing to allow the Control Yuan to impeach those lawmakers who misuse or abuse the "super interpellation rights"? The Impact of Congressional Investigation Authority on the Private Sector In the name of "Congressional Reform," the KMT and the TPP hastily passed a new amendment to Article 47 of the "Law Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Powers" without sufficient deliberation or procedural justice. This amendment grants the Legislative Yuan the power to investigate any individual and private entity. If enacted, the Legislative Yuan can compel anyone, including military personnel, government agencies, legal entities, and individuals, to testify at the congressional hearings and provide any information requested by legislators. Failure to comply will result in continuous fines issued by the Legislative Yuan, and these penalties do not require a court ruling. The targeted individuals and entities can only seek remedy through administrative litigation. The Act not only fails to enhance oversight of the ruling party but also risks becoming a tool for the majority party to target political opponents and infringe upon the rights of people and civil society organizations. The Bill of expansion of authority finished the 2nd reading in the Legislative Yuan on May 21. Article 45 in the Chapter 8 and the subsequent articles of the Bill, which allow the Legislative Yuan to establish investigative committees based on party proportional representation with a majority support from legislators. Additionally, these articles permit standing committees to form special investigative task forces without clear mandate of limitations, enabling committees controlled by a single party to conduct investigations with no restraints. The scope of investigations for these so-called investigative committees or task forces do not need clear evidence of illegal conduct or court orders; furthermore, there is no mechanisms to regulate conflict of interest or to seek remedies. This expansion of powers directly infringes upon the rights and the freedom of people guaranteed under our constitution. If a pro-China opposition party holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, these new powers might become the tools for Beijing to carry out transnational repression and infringe upon human rights of people in Taiwan through Taiwan's legislature. Under the guise of "investigation," Beijing could obtain confidential information on critical infrastructure or enterprises, which would be pressured by continuous fines if they refuse to comply. Once this off-the-limit super investigation authority is officially enacted, all people in Taiwan, even without clear evidence of illegal activity, could become targets of parliamentary investigations once the legislators declare these people are within the scope of "investigation purposes." It will cause serious and huge impact on human rights organizations, civil groups, and independent journalists that deal with sensitive information and they would be the first to bear the brunt, putting our democracy at immense risk and threat.