Judicial Reform Foundation: Hsu Hsi-hsiang's Appointment as Acting Prosecutor General Lacks Legal Basis After Congressional Rejection
Taiwan's Judicial Reform Foundation criticized the President's designation of Hsu Hsi-hsiang, who was rejected by the Legislative Yuan, as acting Prosecutor General, stating it lacks legal basis and undermines parliamentary oversight. They urged the President to withdraw the appointment.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 12, 2026 at 23:06
- 🔍 Collected: May 12, 2026 at 23:31 (25 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 13, 2026 at 02:56 (3h 24m after Collected)
Central News Agency
(Central News Agency reporter Hsieh Chun-lin, Taipei, 12th) The Judicial Reform Foundation stated today that the President's designation of Hsu Hsi-hsiang, Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors Office, who was rejected by the Legislative Yuan, as acting Prosecutor General is tantamount to subtly undermining the right of consent for personnel appointments, and that the designation of an acting official lacks legal basis, raising high doubts about its legality. It urged the President to withdraw the order.
The term of former Prosecutor General Xing Tai-zhao expired on the 7th. President Lai Ching-te nominated Hsu Hsi-hsiang as Prosecutor General on March 13, but the Legislative Yuan rejected the nomination on the 5th. Subsequently, the President designated Hsu Hsi-hsiang as acting Prosecutor General.
In response, the Judicial Reform Foundation today issued a four-point statement. First, the President's designation of an individual rejected by the Legislative Yuan as acting Prosecutor General has undermined the system of parliamentary right of consent. From the perspective of Congress, this treats the acting system as a political bargaining chip, with the effect of forcing Congress to accept it. Furthermore, if the President delays nominating a new candidate in the future, it will cause substantial damage to the system.
The Judicial Reform Foundation stated, second, that using the acting system as a political bargaining chip will harm the credibility of the prosecution. If the President bypasses parliamentary review through an acting designation, it is equivalent to opening a "back door" in the constitutional system, allowing the President to unilaterally decide the leader of the prosecutorial system, even if this individual has been explicitly rejected by Congress. An individual explicitly rejected by a public opinion body, if still forced to act, will bear the negative label of political intervention.
The Judicial Reform Foundation pointed out, third, that "when the term of the Prosecutor General expires, how should an acting official be designated? Can the President designate one?" There are no explicit provisions in current laws. Although there have been precedents of acting Prosecutor Generals in the past, these precedents lacked legal authorization, and whether it is appropriate to continue to cite them is not without legal doubt. Given the importance of the position of Prosecutor General, there is a necessity to clearly stipulate an appropriate acting system in law.
The Judicial Reform Foundation stated, finally, that when Presidents designated acting Prosecutor Generals in the past, it was always in situations where the Prosecutor General resigned, resulting in a temporary vacancy, rather than designating an individual already rejected by the Legislative Yuan. The two situations are not comparable, and there is no room for analogous application. The President's designation of an individual recently rejected by Congress as acting Prosecutor General lacks democratic legitimacy and risks creating a bad constitutional precedent. It urged President Lai Ching-te to withdraw the order and also suggested that relevant agencies promote legal amendments to address legal loopholes. (Editor: Li Xizhang) 1150512
Choose to stand with the facts, every sponsorship you provide is the power to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency 'First-hand News' APP to stay updated with the latest news in real-time.
The text, images, and audio/video on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and used without authorization.
(Central News Agency reporter Hsieh Chun-lin, Taipei, 12th) The Judicial Reform Foundation stated today that the President's designation of Hsu Hsi-hsiang, Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors Office, who was rejected by the Legislative Yuan, as acting Prosecutor General is tantamount to subtly undermining the right of consent for personnel appointments, and that the designation of an acting official lacks legal basis, raising high doubts about its legality. It urged the President to withdraw the order.
The term of former Prosecutor General Xing Tai-zhao expired on the 7th. President Lai Ching-te nominated Hsu Hsi-hsiang as Prosecutor General on March 13, but the Legislative Yuan rejected the nomination on the 5th. Subsequently, the President designated Hsu Hsi-hsiang as acting Prosecutor General.
In response, the Judicial Reform Foundation today issued a four-point statement. First, the President's designation of an individual rejected by the Legislative Yuan as acting Prosecutor General has undermined the system of parliamentary right of consent. From the perspective of Congress, this treats the acting system as a political bargaining chip, with the effect of forcing Congress to accept it. Furthermore, if the President delays nominating a new candidate in the future, it will cause substantial damage to the system.
The Judicial Reform Foundation stated, second, that using the acting system as a political bargaining chip will harm the credibility of the prosecution. If the President bypasses parliamentary review through an acting designation, it is equivalent to opening a "back door" in the constitutional system, allowing the President to unilaterally decide the leader of the prosecutorial system, even if this individual has been explicitly rejected by Congress. An individual explicitly rejected by a public opinion body, if still forced to act, will bear the negative label of political intervention.
The Judicial Reform Foundation pointed out, third, that "when the term of the Prosecutor General expires, how should an acting official be designated? Can the President designate one?" There are no explicit provisions in current laws. Although there have been precedents of acting Prosecutor Generals in the past, these precedents lacked legal authorization, and whether it is appropriate to continue to cite them is not without legal doubt. Given the importance of the position of Prosecutor General, there is a necessity to clearly stipulate an appropriate acting system in law.
The Judicial Reform Foundation stated, finally, that when Presidents designated acting Prosecutor Generals in the past, it was always in situations where the Prosecutor General resigned, resulting in a temporary vacancy, rather than designating an individual already rejected by the Legislative Yuan. The two situations are not comparable, and there is no room for analogous application. The President's designation of an individual recently rejected by Congress as acting Prosecutor General lacks democratic legitimacy and risks creating a bad constitutional precedent. It urged President Lai Ching-te to withdraw the order and also suggested that relevant agencies promote legal amendments to address legal loopholes. (Editor: Li Xizhang) 1150512
Choose to stand with the facts, every sponsorship you provide is the power to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency 'First-hand News' APP to stay updated with the latest news in real-time.
The text, images, and audio/video on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and used without authorization.