回首頁
回首頁
 

鄭文龍

如何看待阿扁總統,重回民進黨

◎ 鄭文龍

沒有程序正義,就沒有實質正義,就沒有罪的問題。這是法學ABC。
扁案沒有程序正義,且有政治干預,當然,不可能說他是貪污犯。

美國憲法強調「程序正義」(Due Process)(美憲第五條,及第十四修正案)
世界各國如果是民主、進步的社會,也都相同。為什麼?
因為,正義,是大家都要的。
但是,何謂正義(justice),常常陷於各說各話,
有時會被群眾盲動的激情而遮蔽。因此,如何解決這個正義問題,是一個的大難題。
美國人被殖民統制及獨立革命的經驗,體驗出,要有正義,就是先要有「程序正義」,
沒有經過程序正義的檢驗,就不可能有正義。
因此,美國的憲法保障「程序正義」,
就是他們知道,要確保所有的過程,都是乾淨、合法,要確保程序正義,
結論及結果,才會有公信力,才會被社會普遍認同及接受。才有正義。

因此,惟有透過「程序正義」,才會有「實質正義」。
沒有程序正義,就沒有正義可言。

如果,民進黨也好,政治人物也好,尤其是一些法律人,如律師、法官、檢察官,
或者是法律學者,如果沒有這些「基本觀念」,其實,就沒資格說,這些人有何基本的民主、法制的素養。
也就是說,不懂「程序正義」,不懂這種民主,及法治的基本素養,基本上,不是民主法治社會的文明人。

扁案,到底是不是一個貪污犯?簡單講,扁案沒有程序正義,已不可能說他是貪污犯。
因為,馬政權,在扁案犯,先犯了重大的程序問題。
而更嚴重的是,比程序正義更嚴重的政治介入司法。

例如:
扁案政權一交出就被境管,
扁案未起訴就先逮捕,
扁案公然換法官,公然作弊,
扁案的特偵組公然教唆辜仲諒偽證作弊,
馬召見司法院長公然干預審判的嚴重問題,
及最高法院屈服馬意,違法罪刑法定主義,違反最高法院五十幾年來的見解,
違法違憲讓阿扁入獄。

所以,不論是國民黨或外界,一點也沒有資格說阿扁是否貪污。
因為,整個案件都已經被政治力干擾及污染,已經不是只有程序不正義的問題而已。
而是更嚴重的政治干預、打壓,及政治鬥爭的問題。
所以,扁案所呈現的,已經完全不是一般的刑案。
而是,斥裸裸的政治力利用司法來鬥爭政敵。這哪裡是審判了。

因此,如果有律師等法律人,或政治人物,對扁的入黨,說三道四。
只能說,這些人,連最基本的法學素養,最基本的「程序正義」,
及最基本的民主法治觀念都不懂。
我看不起這些人。

——轉自鯨魚網站 2013-05-26

鄭文龍律師整理的扁案簡要明細表

序號
Case #
繫屬法院
Final Court
案號
Court Case #
案由
Case Title
目前進度
Current Status
簡要說明
Remarks
1 最高法院
Highest Court
99年度台上字第7078號
99-top-7078
(last update in 2010)

國務機要費案(龍潭購地案部分)

The Long-Tang Land Deal Part within the
President Discretionary Fund Embezzlement Case (see comments below)

三審定讞

Final Verdict Handed down by Highest Court directly (see the same comment below)

一、定執行刑17年6個月。

1. Sentenced to 17.5 years. Currently in prison serving this jail term.

二、本案有中途換法官不公正審判之問題。

2. Legally appointed judge was replaced illegally during the trial.

三、本案有特偵組教唆辜仲諒作偽證之問題。

3. The Special Prosecution Panel coerced Jeffrey Koo, Jr. to provide false testimonies, admitted by Koo, Jr. at court along with his own lawyer during his own trial.

Final Verdict Handed down by Highest Court directly (see the same comment below)

2 高等法院
High Court
101年度矚上重更(二)字第2號
(last case updated in 2012)

國務機要費案(龍潭購地案以外部分)

The President Discretionary Fund Embezzlement Case other than the Long-Tang Land Deal Part

更二審

一、一審判無期徒刑。

1. First trial verdict: life in prison.

二、二審判20年。

2. Second trial: 20 years in prison.

三、更一審判無罪。

(另判偽造文書2年8個月)

3. First retrial: Not guilty for all charges except the charge of falsifying documents, for which 2 years and 8 months sentence was handed down.

四、最高法院發回更二審(偽造文書有罪確定)

4. Highest court invalided the not-guilty verdict and returned the case to High Court for a 2nd retrial. The verdict of falsifying document was upheld and reached a final verdict.

3 高等法院
High Court

101年度台上字第6482號

(last case filed in 2012)

二次金改案(元大併復華部分確定)

The part related to the merge between Yuan-Da Financial Group and Fu-Hua Group within the 2nd Monetary Reform Case

三審定讞

Final Verdict Handed down by Highest Court directly (see the same comment below)

一、一審判決:無罪。

1. First trial: Not Guilty.

二、二審判決:18年。

2. Second trial: 18 years in prison.

三、三審判決:10年。

3. Final verdict: 10 years in prison.

四、本案有馬英九公然以總統身份干涉審判之問題。

4. Ma Ying-Jeou called the not-guilty verdict not acceptable after the first trial and invited judges and prosecutors for a dinner. Soon after, the Long-Tang case was found guilty (case #1) by Highest Court. An obvious violation of abusing political influence to affect a trial’s outcome.

4 高等法院
High Court

102年度矚上重更(一)字第1號

Last case updated in 2013

二次金改案(國泰併世華部分發回)

The part related to the merge between Kuo-Tai and Shi-Hua Financial Groups within the 2nd Monetary Reform Case

二審審理中

In the process of 2nd trial

一、一審判決:無罪。

1. First trial: Not guilty.

二、二審判決:18年。

2. Second trial: 18 years in prison.

三、三審判決:撤銷發回。

3. Third trial: returned to High Court for retrial.

四、本案有馬英九公然以總統身份干涉審判之問題。

Ma Ying-Jeou called the not-guilty verdict not acceptable after the first trial and invited judges and prosecutors for a dinner. Soon after, the Long-Tang case was found guilty (case #1) by Highest Court. An obvious violation of abusing political influence to affect a trial’s outcome.

5 臺灣高等法院
Taiwan High Court

101年度矚上更(一)字第3號

Last update in 2012

教唆偽證案

Witness tempering case

二審審理中

In the process of 2nd trial

一、一審判決:4個月。

1. First trial: Guilty, 4 months in prison

二、二審判決:無罪。

2. Second trial: Not guilty.

三、三審判決:撤銷發回。

3. Third trial: Not guilty verdict was invalided by Highest Court and a retrial ordered.

6 臺灣臺北地方法院
Taipei District Court

101年度矚訴字第2號

Filed in 2012

侵占公文洩密案

Illegal possession of classified documents

無罪定讞

Final Verdict: Not Guilty

President Chen was accused to move many boxes of classified documents from his president office to his ex-president office. All these boxes were unopened because he was placed under custody before he had a chance to use them.

The Special Prosecutor Panel closed the case on Aug. 28, 2014, citing no evidence.

7 臺灣高等法院
Taiwan High Court

99年度矚上重訴字第57號

Last update in 1010

外交零用金案

The Diplomatic Mission Miscellaneous Fund Embezzlement Case

無罪定讞

Final Verdict: Not Guilty

一、二、三審均無罪。

Not Guilty for all three trials.

8 臺灣高等法院
Taiwan High Court

101年度重上字第613號

Last update 2012

科管局請求民事損害賠償案

Civil lawsuit by Scientific Part Authority for the loss due to the Long-Tang Case.

二審審理中

In the process of 2nd trial

一審判決:原告之訴駁回。

1. First trial: the case was ejected by the district court.


陳前總統案件明細表:

Detailed List of All Court Cases against President Chen

2013.02.27製表
Made on 2-27-2013 by Attorney Cheng
Translated by Jay Tu

The cases closed by the prosecutors recently:

1. Accused for money laundering of $40 million using Airforce #1 Presidential plane. This was the sensational Oversea 700 million (NT$) case which turned the public opinion completely against President Chen. On Aug. 6, 2014, the Special Prosecutor Panel closed the case after over six years of investigation and found zero evidence of any money laundering.

2. This case accusing President Chen of stealing classified documents (which are the documents of his own presidential office). The Special Prosecutor Panel closed the case on Aug. 28, 2014, citing no evidence.

 

Comment #1: Taiwan’s court system has three layers, district courts for the first run trials, High Court for the second round, and Highest Court for the third run. Highest Court rarely makes a final verdict directly. It either uphold the verdict reached by High Court or return it back to High Court. However, both final verdicts against President Chen (cases #1 and #3), Highest Court made its own verdict by breaking away from precedents and by inventing a new interpretation of law, denoted as actual influence theory. See attachment #1 for a detailed explanation.

Comment #2: It is very unusual to split a case into different parts and do separate trials for them. Both Guilty final verdicts were split from a general case. It is a typical pattern of political persecution.

Comment#3: President Chen has attorney-client privilege because the meetings with his attorneys were all restricted and recorded.

Comment #4: Please see the attached documents for the unfair trial process described by various witnesses, including President Chen himself.

台灣e新聞