The Constitutional Court will hold oral arguments on the crime of obstructing the vote by ghost populations.
(file photo)
[Reporter Wu Zhengfeng/Taipei Report] The man surnamed Hu and others who were convicted under Article 146 of the Criminal Law for the crime of obstructing voting by ghost population questioned that this provision violated the people's right to vote, freedom of movement, and right of residence, and petitioned for an interpretation of the constitution.
The Constitutional Court has scheduled an oral debate session on April 11, and has announced the outline of the issues in the case a few days ago.
The subject of the review by the Constitutional Court is Article 146, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, which "uses fraud or other illegal methods to cause incorrect results of voting or alters the results of voting...", and Paragraph 2, "Intent to elect a specific candidate, Voters who obtain voting rights by falsely relocating their registered permanent residence to vote...", Item 3: "Punishment for attempted offenses in the preceding two items."
Please read on...
The Constitutional Court sorted out six major issues of contention. First, what is the illegal behavior punished by the ghost population voting center?
Does it involve people's right to vote, freedom of movement, freedom of residence or other constitutional rights?
Second, does the penalty violate the principle of proportionality or equality for constitutional rights?
What is the legislative purpose and constitutional legitimacy?
Does the chronological relationship between election announcement date, candidate registration and household registration for obtaining voting rights affect the constitution of the "illegality" of the punished behavior?
What is the impact?
For electors in the election of public officials, what are the requirements for obtaining voting rights, the basis for obtaining elector qualifications, and their legal attributes?
What is the relationship with the wrongful act punished?
Is it suitable to achieve the legislative purpose to only punish voters who have "separated residence and registration" in a specific situation (that is, falsely moving household registration with the intention to win a specific candidate)?
Are the means of punishment irreplaceable?
Is there any other less infringing legal means?
Third, whether the constituent elements of punishment in item 1 of Article 146 violate the principle of legal clarity of punishment?
Fourth, does the constitutional requirement for punishment in Item 2 of Article 146 violate the principle of legal clarity of punishment?
Fifth, what is the wrongful act relationship between items 1 and 2?
Sixth, what is the illegal act punished in item 3?
A person in the legal field believes that in addition to discussing whether the crime of ghost population is unconstitutional in this case, the judge should focus on why the candidate's "airborne" election cannot be punished?
How can a politician exercise the right to vote and be elected when he is recruited by a political party and has been thoroughly elected in Taiwan, but has no actual residency?
Our country now leniently recognizes the fact of the "residence" of candidates. As long as there is an election campaign, it is equivalent to residence. However, the ghost population crime of the people is strictly recognized. There are indeed doubts about double standards. The justices should actively explain it and make up for the legislators. Neglected loopholes.