Global democracy report flags Taiwan's judicial decline over paralyzed Constitutional Court

The recently released "2026 Global State of Democracy" report has sparked intense concern in Taiwan's political circles and society. Notably, Taiwan's ranking in the judicial independence category slipped into the middle tier, touching a nerve regarding the quality of the nation's democracy and rule of law. In response, the Executive Yuan issued an immediate reaction. Spokesperson Li Hui-chih pointed out that despite the downgrade in the judicial independence score, Taiwan still maintains an excellent performance in the top tier overall regarding the broader "rule of law" evaluation indicators. However, regarding the decline in the judicial independence rating, the Executive Yuan candidly stated that it is closely linked to the prolonged paralysis of the Constitutional Court in recent years and the obstructions facing the operation of constitutional organs.

Further analyzing the content of this international democracy evaluation, the indicator of judicial independence has always been an important cornerstone for measuring a country's degree of democratic consolidation and human rights protection. When authoritative international institutions assess Taiwan's judicial situation, they not only examine the independence of individual case trials, but also comprehensively inspect the soundness of the overall constitutional system. The Executive Yuan specifically pointed out that the long-term paralysis of the Constitutional Court stems from political realities such as the deadlock over the Grand Justices' personnel consent appointments in the Legislative Yuan and impasses in party negotiations, which have prevented the functions of constitutional interpretation and unconstitutional review from operating normally. This idling and dysfunction of constitutional organs directly affected international organizations' evaluation of Taiwan's judicial checks and balances, becoming the key factor that dragged down the judicial independence score.

Faced with external doubts about judicial credibility, the Ministry of Justice also offered explanations and clarifications through Political Deputy Minister Huang Mou-shin. Huang emphasized that a deep examination of the specific contents of the international democracy report reveals that the report contains no mention of any concrete evidence that prosecutors or judges in Taiwan suffered improper interference from the executive branch or political forces during their handling of cases. In other words, the independence and professionalism of Taiwan's grassroots judicial operations have not been questioned or negated in the international evaluation. The Ministry of Justice's statement aims to distinguish between the different levels of "individual trial independence" and "macro constitutional system operation," attempting to convey to the general public that the core backbone of Taiwan's judiciary remains solid and has not collapsed due to political turmoil.

However, while the explanations from the Executive Yuan and the Ministry of Justice point out some of the causes, in the eyes of opposition parties and the legal community, the decline in the judicial independence rating remains a warning bell that must be faced seriously. Taiwan's democracy and rule of law have enjoyed a high international reputation for many years; today, the regression in international scores caused by the internal consumption of the constitutional system not only impacts Taiwan's image as a democratic bastion in Asia, but also highlights that the domestic political parties' stalemate when facing major constitutional issues has substantially affected the nation's overall governance efficacy and international credibility. The rule of law and judicial independence are two sides of the same coin. Relying solely on the top-tier results of the overall rule of law index will likely be insufficient to completely conceal the hidden concerns brought about by the failure of judicial checks and balances.

From the perspective of long-term democratic development and national governance, how to enable the paralyzed Constitutional Court to resume normal operations as soon as possible is a serious issue that all ruling and opposition political parties must jointly face. When the international society examines Taiwan's democratic quality through objective indicators, any idling of constitutional organs will be scrutinized under a magnifying glass and translated into doubts about the nation's democratic resilience. The Executive Yuan's public statement this time is both a passive response to the international report and a helpless expression of domestic political reality. Only when the ruling and opposition parties stop internal consumption, return the constitutional system to its normal track, and ensure sound checks and balances between the judicial power and other constitutional organs, will Taiwan's judicial independence rating possibly return to the top tier in future international reports.