to a later date due to an earlier redistricting plan. The postponement was revoked
by the Ministry of the Interior, which was concerned with electoral inconsistency.
Arguing that the revocation was unconstitutional, the Taipei municipal govern-
ment petitioned the Constitutional Court. In response, the court held that it was
within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior to supervise local elections
and even to revoke municipal decisions, if appropriate. At the same time, however,
the court also indicated that “if the Taipei municipal government considered the
revocation, an administrative disposition, illegal,” it could litigate against the said
ministry before the administrative court.^25 In other words, the court passed the buck
to the administrative court. Yet, as the deadline had passed, the case became moot.
Taking sides
In dealing with politically controversial disputes, the Constitutional Court has
often resorted to strategic avoidance or procedural solution in order to facilitate
the political dialogue or to make space for compromise. However, in a few cases,
the court took rather bold steps to preserve constitutional separation of powers.
In J.Y. Interpretation No 585 , the court dealt with the aftermath of the gunshot
on the eve of the presidential election in 2004. In the afternoon before the Election
Day, President Chen and Vice President Lu were shot while riding in a jeep to
their last campaign rally, both sustaining minor injuries. They won the election by
a razor-thin margin after several rounds of recount. Challenging the election result,
the KMT alleged that President Chen was behind the gunshot incident, designed
to draw voters’ sympathy and electoral support. The KMT legislative majority
quickly passed a special law creating an investigative commission, composed of
an extremely partisan, primarily KMT, membership. The DPP contended that the
special commission was unconstitutional and petitioned the Constitutional Court.
The court stated that establishing a special commission, if defined as an exercise
of the powers of parliamentary investigation, fell within the legislative ambit and,
hence, was constitutional. However, the court noted that, given its status as a
parliamentary organ, the special commission could not command or supervise
prosecutors and other judicial personnel for the investigation and the commission’s
findings on the gunshot incident could never revoke judicial decisions.^26 In other
words, in the view of the Constitutional Court, while the parliamentary investi-
gation might still proceed, the controversy over the presidential election of 2004
had come to an end after the recount was certified and related disputes were
resolved by the Supreme Court. The KMT legislative majority, though very
(^25) J.Y. Interpretation No 553 ( 2002 ), available atwww.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/
p 03 01 .asp?expno= 553.
(^26) J.Y. Interpretation No 585 ( 2004 ), available atwww.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/
p 03 01 .asp?expno= 585.