Modern Social Science Research

The "Court President's Discovery Procedure" for initiating retrials has been heavily criticized in the past. However, this procedure has historical roots in my country's unique judicial process, and in the new era, the public's demand for judicial fairness ensures its continued vitality. Legislative changes, especially the improvement of the prosecutorial suggestion system, have created new opportunities for this procedure. A literal interpretation of legal provisions reveals that the court's ex officio retrial standard is based on the dual application of law: the existence of a genuine error and the necessity of retrial. The former refers to the certainty of the error, while the latter refers to the necessity of retrial. These two aspects complement each other, are logically rigorous, and not only are they operable, but they also implicitly address or prepare for how to conclude the case after retrial. The certainty of the error requires that the error must actually exist and be serious. Drawing on the grounds for retrial applications from litigants, and applying the principle of "the lesser is greater," if the grounds for retrial are not established, the court certainly cannot initiate a retrial on its own initiative. Except for serious procedural errors, cases where the court president discovers a retrial should generally be overturned. In detail, to effectively prevent arbitrary and unlimited retrials, judicial interpretations are needed to limit the number of retrials.

Presidential initiation; Substantial error; Principle of necessity and passivity; Alter judgment