KMT Referendum Proposal to Overrule Constitutional Court Sparks Ruling Party Backlash

Since the opening of the new legislative session, partisan wrestling in Taiwan's parliament has continued to escalate. Among the developments, the Kuomintang (KMT) caucus has listed two amendment bills regarding the Referendum Act as priority legislation, sending shockwaves through the political and legal circles. According to the proposals, the Legislative Yuan or citizens could directly veto judicial rulings made by the Constitutional Court through the referendum process. At the same time, the Central Election Commission (CEC) would be barred from refusing to administer referendum proposals passed by the Legislative Yuan. This move immediately triggered high alert and fierce criticism from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus, which slammed the initiative as a blatant act of subverting the constitution and disrupting governance. Chen Pei-yu, the deputy caucus whip of the DPP, publicly pointed out that this legislative direction has not only drawn severe criticism from domestic legal professionals, but also substantially demonstrated the political ambition of the parliamentary majority to continuously expand legislative power while comprehensively suppressing judicial and executive powers, plunging Taiwan's constitutional order into an unprecedented and severe challenge.

Reviewing the context of Taiwan's constitutional development, the Referendum Act has undergone multiple major revisions. From the strict thresholds once ridiculed as a "bird-cage referendum" to significant reforms in recent years that substantially lowered the thresholds for proposing and passing referendums as well as reducing the voting age, referendums have been viewed as an essential tool for deepening direct democracy. However, the boundary between referendums and representative democracy has always been the focus of debate among constitutional scholars and politicians. As the ultimate guardian of Taiwan's constitutional order, the Constitutional Court's primary responsibility is to review whether laws or administrative orders are unconstitutional, thereby safeguarding fundamental human rights and maintaining the separation of powers. When the KMT caucus proposes granting referendums the power to "veto rulings of the Constitutional Court," it is tantamount to allowing majority public opinion to override the constitution through a referendum. In legal theory, this is seen as shaking the fundamental basis of constitutionalism, because the very function of a constitution is to limit potential abuses of power by a democratic majority in order to protect minority rights and institutional stability.

In addition to challenging judicial independence, the KMT caucus's proposal to restrict the role of the CEC has likewise sparked intense controversy within executive and electoral administration agencies. The current Referendum Act vests the CEC with the authority and responsibility of an independent electoral body to conduct substantive reviews on whether referendum proposals comply with legal regulations and fall within the scope of local autonomy or national referendums, thereby ensuring the professionalism and neutrality of the electoral administration. However, the proposal demands that the CEC "shall not refuse to administer" any referendum proposal passed by the Legislative Yuan. This is effectively equivalent to stripping away the CEC's vetting function, downgrading an independent electoral body into an instrument for executing partisan will. The DPP caucus is deeply concerned, believing that this not only undermines the autonomous operation of the executive branch, but may also lead to unchecked legislative dominance. By allowing the parliamentary majority to issue direct instructions to the electoral agency, the executive department would lose room to operate in accordance with the law, further distorting Taiwan's separation of powers and system of checks and balances.

This political offensive and defensive battle over amendments to the Referendum Act essentially reflects the deep-seated contradictions among Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties following changes in the parliamentary structure. Ever since no single party secured a majority in the Legislative Yuan and the KMT formed a substantive alliance with the Taiwan People's Party (TPP) on most issues, the expansion of parliamentary power has become the main strategy for the opposition parties to check the Executive Yuan and the DPP government. From the earlier controversial parliamentary expansion-of-power bills that triggered massive social protests to now reaching directly into the Constitutional Court and independent electoral agencies, the opposition parties are attempting to redefine the landscape of national power distribution through amendments to relevant laws. However, the camp supporting the amendments believes this is a necessary means to implement popular sovereignty and demonstrate the ultimate expression of direct democracy. When Grand Justices' interpretations fail to gain the consensus of the social majority, or when the executive branch attempts to bypass the Legislative Yuan through administrative power, referendums serve as the final recourse for the people. A fundamental divergence has emerged between the two sides regarding the interpretation of democratic values.

Looking ahead to the upcoming legislative agenda, these two amendment bills concerning the Referendum Act are bound to become the frontline of conflict between the ruling and opposition parties. The DPP caucus and legal professionals are networking across various sectors, attempting to highlight the constitutional crisis and regression of the rule of law hidden behind these proposals through public opinion pressure and discursive warfare. Conversely, the KMT caucus holds a relative majority advantage in parliament; should it be determined to forcibly advance the bills, a showdown vote in the legislative chamber will be unavoidable. Even if the bills are eventually passed through the third reading in the Legislative Yuan, whether they will be referred back to the Judicial Yuan's Constitutional Court for constitutional interpretation due to potential unconstitutionality—or even trigger a deeper constitutional storm—leaves the next steps of Taiwan's democracy full of variables. This is not merely a legislative tug-of-war between political parties, but a critical health check for Taiwan's democratic constitutional system regarding the separation of powers and the principle of the rule of law.