Freezing Premier's salary not only unconstitutional? Legal circles raise shocking criminal liability doubts: legislators may be involved in 'withholding wages'

A controversy has erupted in Taiwan's Legislative Yuan over its decision to freeze the salary of Premier Cho Jung-tai and reduce the budget for the Ill-gotten Party Assets Committee. This move has ignited a debate about potential constitutional violations and the protection of civil servant salaries.

“

Legislators' review of the budget, including reductions and freezes, is a power granted by the constitution. However, the budget power is not without limits. If other laws explicitly guarantee certain expenditures, it must be further examined whether legislators can unilaterally reduce or freeze the budget.

Retired senior judges and legal experts are scrutinizing the implications of the legislative actions. They point out that while the Legislative Yuan has the constitutional authority to review and adjust budgets, this power may not be absolute. The concern is that by freezing funds designated for legally mandated payments, legislators might be overstepping their bounds.

“

Civil servant salaries are a statutory obligation of the state, and civil servants have the right to claim salaries from the state. In principle, legally mandated salaries cannot be arbitrarily reduced. If the Legislative Yuan uses budget means to withhold salaries that should be paid according to law, it will raise the issue of whether it involves the criminal law of 'withholding or detaining' property that should be issued under official duties.

Specifically, legal minds are exploring whether such budget freezes could lead to criminal charges. They cite Article 131 of the Criminal Code, which addresses the offense of "withholding or detaining" property that a public servant is obligated to issue. The argument is that if the legislative action directly prevents the payment of salaries that are legally guaranteed, it could potentially implicate the legislators involved.

“

The legal interest protected by the crime of withholding and detaining is the fairness and integrity of the state's legally mandated payments, which should not be stalled according to law. This is a type of dereliction of duty offense, and legislators should not be excluded. Prosecutors should have space for investigation to protect the state's legal interests.

These experts emphasize that the core of the legal question lies in determining the scope of legislative power concerning budgets versus the state's legal obligation to pay its employees. They suggest that the intent behind the freeze and whether legislators were aware they were preventing legally owed payments would be crucial in any potential criminal investigation. The ultimate determination of whether legislators can be held criminally responsible would likely depend on judicial interpretation in specific cases.

“

Currently, it cannot be directly determined that legislators who vote to reduce or freeze the budget constitute a crime. It is still necessary to clarify the elements of the crime, such as 'property that should be issued under official duties' and 'withholding or detaining' as mentioned in the Criminal Code, and whether the subjects of the relevant crimes include legislators. Ultimately, it must be determined by judicial cases.