Taipei: Premier Cho Jung-tai on Wednesday defended the government's use of a controversial "countersignature" power to block the implementation of bills passed by the opposition-controlled Legislature. This defense came in response to criticism from a U.S. scholar who deemed the tactic "blatantly unconstitutional."According to Focus Taiwan, Kharis Templeman, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, addressed the "deadlock" in Taiwan's democracy during a forum in Taipei. Templeman criticized Premier Cho's unprecedented use of the countersignature power, arguing that it effectively granted Cho a veto power not explicitly provided by the Republic of China Constitution. While Templeman acknowledged the political reasoning behind Cho's actions, he maintained that such a move was constitutionally unsound.The controversy centers around Article 37 of the Republic of China Constitution, which mandates that laws be promulgated with the countersignature of the President of the Executive Yuan. Since December 2025 , this power has been used to block eight bills passed by the Legislature, marking a first in Taiwan's political history.In a radio interview, Premier Cho emphasized Taiwan's unique "semi-presidential system," where the president lacks the authority to veto bills deemed unconstitutional or harmful. He argued that the executive's ability to counter the legislative branch lies in the premier's power to withhold a countersignature. Cho further clarified that the premier's role is not to check the president but rather to support presidential authority, given the president's power to appoint or dismiss the premier unilaterally.At a press conference, DPP Legislator Chuang Jui-hsiung suggested that the opposition could pass a motion of no confidence against Premier Cho to resolve the constitutional controversy. However, such a move risks prompting the president to dissolve the Legislature and call for new elections, a scenario that has never played out under Taiwan's current constitution.Adding to the complexi ty is the situation with Taiwan's Constitutional Court, which has been unable to function fully due to a lack of quorum following legislative amendments. The court, with only eight active justices, was rendered ineffective until five justices ruled against the stricter quorum requirement. This decision, however, has led to further division and concerns over the legitimacy of rulings made by a reduced bench.Source: Focus Taiwan