2011年4月26日 星期二

特赦?重審!

◎ 陳昭姿

許信良在最後一場政見發表會拋出特赦陳水扁的議題。

回顧扁案,當初依「法官法定」原則,由周占春法官的合議庭抽中審理,卻在合議庭裁定無保釋放後,以庭長會議的行政手段,做出更換法官的決定,明顯違憲,洪英花法官因此堅持「扁案判決、自始無效」!

除了因更換法官而被判重罪(如國務機要費案與龍潭購地案等)以外,二○一○年六月,特偵組起訴的貪污外交款案,台北地方法院判決無罪,合議庭甚至嚴詞批判特偵組「任意拼湊、強加比附,毫無可信之處。」

同年十一月五日,特偵組起訴「二次金改索賄洗錢案」,台北地方法院判決陳前總統夫婦及全部二十一名被告無罪。六天後,最高法院以令人難以想見的快速四個月,與司法史上罕見的「直接定讞」,將「龍潭購地案」及「陳敏薰人事案」重罪三審定讞,定讞日甚至出現無判決書可查之事。

今年一月,台灣高等法院認為貪污外交款案一審判決無誤,檢方上訴無理由,仍判陳前總統無罪。不久前,台灣高等法院審理紅火案,律師陳明與中信金法務長金延華出庭作證指稱紅火公司獲利的三億元未流進扁家,因辜仲諒擔心返台被押,才會幫他做出不實陳報狀。兩人證稱,辜仲諒希望返台後不被羈押,且特偵組辦案對他較友善,才請他們做不實陳報狀,並依特偵組意見,改稱紅火獲利三億元多數用於沖銷先前送進扁家的現金缺口,餘款供扁家日後再度索討之用。

凡是遵守「法官法定」原則的案件,陳前總統都是無罪。因此,我們不要特赦,只要求當初違反法官法定原則由蔡守訓接手的案件,退回原周占春法官的合議庭,以公平、公正、甚至公開方式重審,還給陳前總統「司法公道」! (作者為台灣北社社長)

Source: 自由時報電子報

英文版

No amnesty, but retrial

A political amnesty to Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁)were thrown out by DPP presidential primary candidate Hsu Hsin-liang(許信良)during the final policy session, which made a subject of the chatterer from blue camp later.

Accepting amnesty is contrary to our long time stand – Chen is innocent, so we call for a fair retrial instead of a pardon.

According to the "legal judge principle” (法官法定) , the collegial panel of judges originally drawn by lot for Chen’s case was of judge Chou Zhanchun (周占春), however, when the panel ruled Chen be released without bail, a political order was then made to replace Chou with judge Tsai Shou Shun (蔡守訓), apparently unconstitutional, which formed the basis behind the voice of judge Hung Ying Hua (洪英花)"The ruling of Chen’s case is not valid from the very beginning.

Replacing the judge did lead to a felony, as seen in the State Affairs Fund case(國務機要費案) and the Longtan Purchase case(龍潭購地案). On the other hand, the corruptive diplomatic pension case(貪污外交款案)charged by the Special Investigation Unit with Chen was found not guilty by the Taipei District Court in June 2010, stern criticism such as "arbitrary patchwork, imposed analogy, nowhere is reliable." was added in the indictment to the prosecutors.

In November 2010, with the charge by the Special Investigation Unit on "the second financial reform money laundering case" (二次金改案), the Taipei District Court ruled that the former president ,his wife and all twenty-one defendants not guilty. Six days later, in a unimaginable short period of three examination judge process - less than 4 months, and with a rarely seen way in judicial history, the Supreme Court rendered directly “the Longtan Purchase Case"(龍潭購地案) and "Diana Chen President's nominations" (陳敏薰人事案) , Chen was sentenced a felony, and the court verdict was not made public on the same day but until 2 weeks later.

In January 2011, the Taiwan High Court judged the “corruptive diplomatic pension case” (貪污外交款案) is a correct verdict, there is no reason for the prosecution to appeal, and the former president was again sentenced not guilty.

Apparently for cases following "the judge legal principle”, the former president is not guilty. Therefore, pardon is not our demand and cases violating "the judge legal principles” should be returned to the legal judge Zhou Zhanchun(周占春) from Tsai Shou Shun (蔡守訓). Since a mercy pardon will not clear his name, the former president is entitled to a retrial held in a fair, just and open manner instead.

2011年4月10日 星期日

致馬總統的公開信

馬總統鈞鑒:

您可能記得,我們這一群下列署名來自美國、加拿大、歐洲及澳洲的國際學者及作家,曾經數次公開向貴政府致函,針對台灣目前一些令人顧慮的發展走向表達我們的關心。身為支持台灣民主的國際友人,我們深切關心貴國的民主自由及未來的發展。

這次,我們致函給您,是為了向您表達我們關心台灣最新的政治發展:貴政府指控十七位民進黨官員在民進黨執政時期「未歸檔」三萬六千餘件公文,而違反檔案法及另外兩條法規。

根據貴政府在三月二十九日發出的聲明,此案已送請監察院調查,也表示刑事責任擬被一併追究。

被調查的名單上包括了民進黨許多政要:前任總統府秘書長及交通部長葉菊蘭、前任總統府秘書長及外交部長陳唐山、前任副秘書長及駐華府大使吳釗燮、前任副秘書長及外交部長簡又新、前任秘書長及行政院長蘇貞昌。

此事件發生的時機令我們感到憂慮。如果任何的公文「不知去向」,貴政府應該在二○○八年政權從民進黨政府轉移至貴政府交接時就應該已發現。選擇在三年後,當民進黨正在進行明年總統大選初選的時刻,將這件事情搬上檯面,難免令人懷疑有政治鬥爭的意圖。

除此之外,「消失公文」案是在蘇貞昌先生宣布參選民進黨總統初選的前一天公布的。蘇先生毋庸置疑將會在未來的總統大選扮演舉足輕重的角色,不管是身為候選人或是最終候選人的支持者。選擇在此時機宣布對他及其他人進行調查,確實讓人覺得這是一種政治手段,目的是打擊民進黨及其候選人,並使他們失信於民。

我們也想要指出,在任何的政府機構裡,這些公文,被行政首長檢視及審核後,其下的部屬則負責處理公文歸檔的工作。雖然政權已經從民進黨輪替至國民黨,但這些公務員們應無變動。在台灣重視法規的官僚體系之下,這些公務員不敢偏離既有的處理公文規章。根據我們長期觀察台灣政治發展的經驗,我們相信這些指控是不正確的且充滿政治動機。在民主體制內尊崇法治本無可厚非,但這必須是在公平且無私的情況下進行,不能讓人覺察到有任何一絲的濫權。

在我們看來,貴政府所採取的行動極不恰當。這樣的行為使貴政府看起來是試圖利用監察院及司法體系來達成政治打壓的目的,企圖讓整個事件表面看來似乎「於法有據」,以避免外國政府及人權組織的批評。

我們因此呼籲您及貴政府,應竭盡全力在台灣建立最完整的民主制度,並避免利用司法之名以行政治迫害之實。

近二十年來因為台灣人民的努力而促成了台灣轉型成為民主國家。台灣人民有權利要求他們的領導人物治國之道應該是公正、公平及不偏不倚的。

順頌 鈞安

二○一一年四月八日

署名人(依英文姓氏排列):

1.Nat Bellocchi白樂崎(前美國在台協會主席)

2.Coen Blaauw昆布勞(美國台灣人公共事務會)

3.Jean Pierre Cabestan(香港浸會大學「政府及國際研究」系主任及教授)

4.Gordon G. Chang(《中國即將崩潰》作者)

5.Ketty Chen(德州柯林大學政府研究副教授)

6.Peter Chow周鉅原(美國紐約市立學院經濟學教授)

7.Stephane Corcuff(法國里昂大學「中國和台灣研究」政治學副教授)

8.Michael Danielsen(丹麥哥本哈根「台灣一角」主席)

9.June Teufel Dreyer金德芳(美國邁阿密大學政治學教授)

10.Norman W. Getsinger(美國國務院退休,喬治華盛頓大學研究所研究)

11.Terri Giles賈泰麗(美國福爾摩莎基金會執行長)

12.Michael Rand Hoare(英國倫敦大學退休副教授)

13.Christopher R. Hughes(英國倫敦政經學院教授)

14.Thomas G. Hughes(美國前參議員斐爾國會辦公室主任)

15.Bruce Jacobs家博(澳洲蒙納許大學亞洲語言和研究教授)

16.Richard C. Kagan柯耕義(美國翰林大學歷史系榮譽教授)

17.Jerome F. Keating祈潤夫(國立台北大學退休副教授)

18.Hon. David Kilgour(加拿大前國會議員、亞太國務卿)

19.Andre Laliberte(加拿大渥太華大學政治學副教授)

20.Daniel Lynch(美國南加州大學副教授)

21.Victor H. Mair(美國賓州大學中國語言和文學系教授)

22.Rev. Bruce McLeod(前加拿大教會委員會會長及加拿大聯合教會前議長)

23.Donald Rodgers(美國德州奧斯丁大學政治學副教授)

24.Terence Russell(加拿大曼尼托巴大學中國語言和文學系副教授)

25.Christian Schafferer(僑光科技大學國際貿易系副教授,奧地利東亞研究協會主任,《當代東亞》主編)

26.David Schak(澳洲格里菲斯大學國際貿易及亞洲研究副教授)

27.Michael Stainton(加拿大多倫多York Center for Asia Research研究員)

28.Peter Tague(美國喬治城大學法律系教授)

29.Ross Terrill譚若思(美國哈佛大學費正清東亞研究中心)

30.John Tkacik譚慎格(前美國傳統基金會資深研究員及前美國國務院台灣事務協調處官員)

31.Arthur Waldron林蔚(美國賓夕法尼亞大學國際關係學教授)

32.Gerrit van der Wees韋傑理(台灣公報編輯)

33.Michael Yahuda(倫敦政經學院訪問學者)

34.Stephen Yates葉望輝(DC International諮詢顧問團主席,前美國副總統國家安全政策顧問)

以上轉載自自由時報電子報

順便回顧一下以前的公開信:


  • Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan

    ... We also believe that the procedures followed by the prosecutor’s offices are severely flawed... This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law.

    ... This kind of “trial by press” is a violation of the basic standards of judicial procedures. It also gives the distinct impression that the Kuomintang (KMT) authorities are using the judicial system to get even with members of the former DPP government...


  • Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2

    ... This casts severe doubts on the impartiality of the judicial system...

    ... When they were detained, they were subjected to lengthy interrogations — in some cases for up to 20 hours — which bore the character of a “fishing expedition,” and do not represent a formal indictment in any legal sense...

    ... this is a grave infringement on international norms regarding lawyer-client privilege...

    ... if the ministry proceeds along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system...

    ... The problem is that the present system is being used in a very partial fashion...

    ... it is hard to see how the persons involved — including former president Chen — can have a fair trial in Taiwan...

    ... we do remain deeply disturbed by the erosion of justice in Taiwan...


  • Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3

    ... The switch of the case from a three-panel court that released him on his own cognizance on Dec. 13 to a court that subsequently re-incarcerated him on Dec. 25 — both Christmas Day and Constitution Day — seems to have resulted from political pressure from KMT members of the Legislative Yuan...

    ... This pattern of behavior displays a distinct bias in the judicial system and a disregard for fair and impartial processes...

    ... In our view the actions by the prosecutors and the comment by Minister Wang display a lack of judicial professionalism and political neutrality...

    ... both the right of the accused to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence have been seriously jeopardized...


  • Open letter to Taiwan’s president

    ... In the case of the former president, it is evident that the prosecution is heavily tainted by political bias, and that the former president is being treated badly out of spite for the political views and the positions he took during his presidency...

    ... Decisions and agreements are arrived at in secrecy and then simply announced to the public...


  • An open letter to Taiwan’s president

    ... They are also reflected in the expressions of concern by international scholars and friends of Taiwan related to the flaws in the judicial proceedings against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the apparent lack of neutrality in the continuing “investigations” and indictments of other prominent members of the former DPP government...