The 1988 National Conference on the Judiciary opened on November 16. The four-day event was held at the Judges and Prosecutors Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice. President Lee Teng-hui sent written greetings, urging those working in the judiciary to be loyal, to respect the respon sibilities of their offices, to be fair and incorruptible, to uphold the law, to stride toward judicial reform, and to consolidate the base for the rule of law.

Mr. Lin Yang-kang, President of the Judicial Yuan, addressed the conference in the opening ceremony. He said that because the level of knowledge of the people has been raised, society's image and the current trends are rapidly evolving. People hope the quality of the judiciary can be more refined and that the judicial system can be put in better order. In the face of this new era, he sincerely hoped that the scholars and specialists and the practicing judicial officers, investigators, and lawyers participating could offer their views and integrate the scholarly and the practical in order to create a new era in judicial reform. In this conference, the most outstanding innovations were the following:

(1) As regards the functions of the Council of Grand Justices and the stage of proceedings, questions such as the following drew varied opinions: Should the former be changed to a constitutional court of law or constitutional courtroom? Should the powers of office of judges be expanded? How can the efficacy and exercise of the Grand Justices' powers of interpretation be clearly set? In particular vis-a-vis whether the lay assessor's court should be employed, after discussion by the participants, Mr. Lin expressed his judgement that one could borrow from the spirit of that system and establish "Trial Regulations for the Lay Assessor's Court" and employ these in some given category of litigations. As for selection and powers, these should be judged with the completing of the legislative process of detailed rules and regulations. If all goes well with the experiment, the lay assessor's court can be fully effected without serious problem.

(2) It was also decided the types of written court verdicts should be simplified, and that besides looking into such simplification during amendment of the civil and criminal laws, the Compulsory Execution Law could be amended to give executing authorities the right to consult tax records to avoid hiding of property or false claims of debt. It was also suggested that notarizing be done by members of the public with appropriate qualifications as well as by the courts.

(3) As for whether the doctrine of parties procedure should be employed in criminal cases, it was believed that the objective conditions in society do not permit complete implementation so that thus far the powers of office to undertake cases on the part of the investigators should be strengthened. Currently in the ROC criminal cases follow the doctrine of instruction procedure. Investigators rely on police information, and the courts on investigators' information. Judges' questioning is often limited, leaving one or both sides dissatisfied and encouraging resort to bribery or at least rumors that such has occurred. This system is not appropriate for the mood of society, and the principle of having cases undertaken by those involved should be implemented at an early time; the seeds for this change were planted at this conference.

(4) As for administrative appeals, it was suggested to make provisions to add "pay litigation" and "confirmation litigation" at the time of amending the administrative appeals code; the purpose being to com pensate for the inadequacies of the code, to guarantee citizens' rights, and to create more avenues of appeal to the government.

(5) As for the various names assigned to judges at different levels, judges themselves unanimously believe there is a need for "rectification of names." Currently there is a confusing variety of titles for slightly different functions; the conference suggested all should be called "judge" without exception and relevant regulations should be changed.

In sum, this conference had considerably innovative decisions: in particular the trial use of the lay assessor's court will change the perspective and methods of our current deliberations, and the addition of new chan nels for administrative appeals will help guarantee public rights. It is a pity that the criminal litigation system retained its traditional principles; in view of the democratic changes in society, it should also be changed. This could be an objective for the next Conference on the Judiciary.