Taiwan’s 70-year-old judge does not want to retire and fights for judicial power but is rejected by the Judicial Yuan

Hong Yinghua, chief judge of the Criminal Review Division of the Taipei District Court, will turn 70 next year. She believes that she is in good health and will not apply for preferential treatment or treatment.retire Wants to continue to engage in trial work as he grows older, but the Judicial Yuan believes that according to the provisions of the Judiciary Law, judges must stop judging when they reach the age of 70, and they cannot handle cases even if they have not applied for preferential treatment or voluntary retirement.

When the news of Hong Yinghua’s fight for the “right to trial” spread, many judges were surprised, “Everyone is retiring early these days, and it is rare that some people do not want to retire when they reach age.” However, he also acknowledged that some judges are enthusiastic about litigation and are willing to continue hearing cases even if their salaries are reduced after they reach age. Especially as people’s average life expectancy increases, it should not be mandatory for people over the age of 70 not to touch cases.

According to the investigation, Hong Yinghua signed a declaration stating that she would not apply for preferential treatment or voluntary retirement from August 6 next year and would continue to serve justice. He believes that the Constitution guarantees lifetime tenure of judges to maintain the power and responsibility for independent trials. The Judge Law guarantees that judges over the age of 70 are not required to handle cases. It does not oblige judges to stop giving judgments after reaching the age of 70, otherwise there would be concerns about unconstitutionality.

The Taipei District Court believed that the application of the Judges Act was questionable, and requested clarification from the Judicial Yuan, the competent authority, through the Taiwan High Court. The Judicial Yuan recently responded in a letter that judges can only “voluntarily retire” and there is no requirement for retirement at a certain age or in the order.

However, according to Article 70, Paragraph 1 of the Judges Law, the Judicial Yuan holds that an important judge who has served for more than 15 years and is older than 70 should stop hearing cases without applying, and may engage in research, arbitration or other judicial administration work. Other rules are that the court occupying the vacancy must notify the Judicial Yuan in writing to approve the suspension of trials three months before the judge reaches the age of 70.

The Judicial Yuan believes that the reason for the enactment of the Judge Law is that “the work of judicial trial is heavier and heavier, and people over the age of 70 are no longer able to bear the burden.” It can be seen that the legislators believe that judges above 70 years of age are unable to bear the heavy trial workload. In order to protect people’s judicial beneficiary rights, they clearly stipulate that judges should stop handling cases when they grow old. There is no provision in the Judges Law that judges who have reached the age of 70 can still continue to judge.

Since the Constitution guarantees that judges have lifelong tenure, the provision that judges stop adjudicating when they reach legal age has been questioned as unconstitutional. The Judicial Yuan interpretation also responded that it is not the power and responsibility of the judicial administration to regulate whether it is unconstitutional, but the provisions of the Judge Law are not automatically unconstitutional. According to Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 162 and Interpretation No. 539, personnel and administrative actions affecting the identity, duties, rights, and interests of judges are not matters reserved by the Constitution. Legislators can regulate other laws. The Judge Law clearly prohibits judges from performing their duties.

The Judicial Yuan also cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision and held that the mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges in the Missouri Constitution does not violate the right to equality. Therefore, it is difficult to find that the provisions of the Judges Act of our country are unconstitutional.