Taiwanese Court Members: Case Increase & Pre-Filtering Options

Controversy heats up with the passage of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee
Concerns over trial delay due to overload of work at the Constitutional Court… In some cases, the Spanish route took up to 13 years.
Among Taiwan’s 8,533 cases, only 0.1% were problematic trials… ‘Constitutional Court above Supreme Law’ unconstitutionality remains

While the debate over the pros and cons of the court decision being subject to review by the Constitutional Court is heating up, in Taiwan, which introduced the court judgement in 2022, cases were found to have increased nearly six-fold in the first year of implementation. Even in light of overseas cases, there are voices both inside and outside the court that are concerned that if tribunal members are introduced, the number of cases filed with the Constitutional Court will increase significantly, delaying the processing of remaining general cases. As a result, the damage to citizens trying to receive relief for their basic rights may only increase. Regarding this, the Constitutional Court’s position is, “Delays in trials can be prevented by only hearing cases with constitutional significance.”

● In the first year of introduction in Taiwan, cases increased from 747 to 4,371.

According to the case handling statistical yearbook released by the Constitutional Courts of Taiwan, Germany, and Spain, which are implementing the tribunal system on the 13th, in Taiwan, which introduced the tribunal system in 2022, the number of cases filed with the Constitutional Court in the first year of implementation was 4,371, a nearly six-fold increase compared to the previous year (747 cases). Of these, 97% were tribunal cases. The number of cases filed with Taiwan’s Constitutional Court decreased to 1,359 in 2023 and 1,137 in 2024, but increased again to 2,042 last year.

Of the 8,533 cases filed with Taiwan’s Constitutional Court, 27 (0.3%) were ruled unconstitutional as of last year. Of these, 18 were rulings that found the law applied in the trial unconstitutional, and only 9 (0.1%) ruled that there were problems with the trial itself.

In Germany, where the tribunal began in 1951, 4,012 tribunal cases were submitted to the Constitutional Court in 2024, the most recent statistics, and 33 cases (0.8%) were concluded as unconstitutional. In the same year, 613 cases were filed with the court claiming that the trials of Germany’s highest court were unconstitutional, but none were accepted. In Spain, which has adopted the tribunal system since 1979, only 65 cases, or 0.7%, of the 9,344 tribunal cases received in 2024 were cited.

Compared to Taiwan, Germany, or Spain, Korea has a high appeal rate of 40-50% based on the first trial, seeking a higher judgment against a court ruling. Accordingly, there are speculations, both inside and outside the court, that the number of applications to court members seeking the Constitutional Court’s judgment against the final ruling will also be high. A lawyer who served as a researcher at the Constitutional Court said, “The Spanish Constitutional Court, which receives 6,000 to 10,000 cases a year, is overloaded with an explosion of cases and is facing serious delays in processing cases,” and added, “There is a case where it took 13 years for a case to adjudicate an unconstitutional law to be concluded.”

View larger

Regarding this, the Constitutional Court stated on the 13th, “If we focus our capabilities on cases that are consistent with the nature of the court, such as cases that have important constitutional meaning or are necessary to guarantee fundamental rights, we can minimize the problems caused by the increase in adjudication cases.” It is interpreted that the plan is to selectively hear about 100 cases with key issues, such as constitutional importance, out of thousands of cases per year, like the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if the Constitutional Court is overloaded due to the surge in cases, another obstacle is that the Constitution must be amended to increase the number of judges. This is because the number of Supreme Court justices is not specified in the Constitution, but the number of Constitutional Court judges is limited to nine.

● “Concern about delay in litigation” vs. “About 10 citations over 37 years”

View larger

The law to introduce court members that the Democratic Party of Korea is trying to pass includes a provision for a provisional injunction that allows the effect of a court ruling to be suspended until the Constitutional Court reaches a conclusion, but some point out that it could be abused to delay litigation. Tenants who have received a final judgment from the court to “evict from the building” can delay eviction by filing a court hearing and then applying for a temporary injunction. In cases with a large economic and social impact, such as ordinary wage litigation, confusion may increase if the effect of a final ruling is suspended by a court judge.

In response to this, the Constitutional Court said, “If a new legal relationship is formed before the Constitutional Court’s decision is made, irreparable damage may occur to the parties, and only in extremely exceptional cases like this is a provisional injunction necessary,” adding, “The number of citations for provisional injunctions in the 37-year history of the Constitutional Court is around 10, so even if a court member is introduced, the actual number of citations will be minimal.” Normally, applications for provisional injunctions are submitted to the court, but former Board of Audit and Inspection Chairman Choi Jae-hae and former Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office Chief Lee Chang-soo, who were suspended from their duties due to impeachment by the National Assembly, also filed an application for provisional injunctions with the Constitutional Court, saying, “Please stop the effect of the suspension.”

Controversy continues over whether it is unconstitutional for the Constitutional Court to review court rulings. Our Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court as independent constitutional institutions and states that ‘the Supreme Court is the highest court.’ Accordingly, the judiciary’s opinion is that it is against the constitutional system for the Constitutional Court to act as a superior court to overturn the Supreme Court’s final decision. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court’s position is, “The introduction of the Court does not mean placing the Constitutional Court above the Supreme Court,” and “The Spanish Constitution also provides for the separation of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, but the Court of Justice is being implemented.”

There are also concerns that lawsuits surrounding the court system may proliferate. In Spain, the Supreme Court ruled against the judge in a suit for damages filed by a citizen against a constitutional court judge in 2004, saying, “It was illegal for the judge to not provide sufficient reasons for his decision to dismiss the constitutional appeal.” Then, the judge filed a complaint saying that it was an “unconstitutional trial,” and the Constitutional Court again overturned the Supreme Court ruling. Ultimately, the relevant laws had to be revised to prevent excessive litigation.