Taipei: Premier Cho Jung-tai on Monday defended his unprecedented decision not to countersign amendments to the local revenue-sharing law passed by the Legislature, stating that the Cabinet has exhausted all available constitutional remedies. This move has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties.
According to Focus Taiwan, Cho made the remarks at a press conference, arguing that the Legislature’s passage of the amended Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures violated constitutional principles, undermined the separation of powers, and encroached on the executive branch’s authority over budget formulation. Cho emphasized that his decision represents the executive’s final means to address what it considers legislative wrongdoing.
The controversial amendments, passed by the opposition-controlled Legislative Yuan on November 14 and upheld after a reconsideration motion was rejected on December 5, would increase the share of central government revenue allocated to local governments. Under the Republic of China (Taiwan) Constitution, laws promulgated by the president require the premier’s countersignature. Cho clarified that his refusal to countersign does not equate to authoritarianism or executive overreach, as the Legislature retains the option to initiate a no-confidence vote against him.
Such a motion, if approved by a majority of legislators, would compel Cho to resign within 10 days, allowing him to request that President Lai Ching-te dissolve the Legislature and hold new elections. Cho highlighted that the Legislature has consistently passed “controversial” bills, escalating tensions between the executive and legislative branches despite multiple meetings with Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu and party caucuses.
Accusing the Legislature of becoming an “autocratic political branch” by expanding its authority to secure more funding, Cho stated that the constitutional system is being undermined. He added that a successful no-confidence motion would serve as his “badge of honor” for defending democracy.
Opposition parties strongly criticized Cho’s move on Monday. Kuomintang (KMT) Spokesman Niu Hsu-ting accused the executive branch of distorting the Constitution and disregarding a law passed by the democratically-elected legislative majority, warning that this decision undermines both the rule of law and parliamentary democracy in Taiwan. Niu urged the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to acknowledge its minority status, citing the recent mass legislative recall vote as confirmation of public opinion.
Huang Kuo-chang, chair of the smaller opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), expressed similar concerns, labeling the decision “the most serious trampling of democratic institutions.” He noted that even during late President Chiang Kai-shek’s authoritarian rule, such methods were not used to nullify laws passed by the Legislature.
In response, the Presidential Office issued a statement on Monday, indicating that President Lai had annotated the promulgation order, cautioning that the revisions could undermine fiscal sustainability. Presidential Office spokesperson Karen Kuo explained that the revisions could weaken central finances, distort revenue allocations, hinder key policy implementation, and strain the government’s ability to safeguard national security and respond to natural disasters.
The dispute highlights deepening tensions between Taiwan’s DPP government and the opposition-controlled Legislature, underscoring unresolved disagreements over constitutional interpretations, institutional checks, and the balance of power in Taiwan’s democratic system. The Constitutional Court, incapacitated since January 2025 due to a legal revision requiring a quorum of 10 grand justices, has exacerbated the stalemate.
Questions also persist regarding the fate of other government-opposed amendments, including changes to pension laws that would raise pensions for retired civil servants and public school teachers, ending the 10-year period of pension cuts initiated in 2018. Government officials warn that implementing such changes could accelerate pension fund depletion, forcing taxpayers to cover shortfalls earlier than projected.