Here is the English translation of your article, with the specified names and terms from your glossary applied:

• Illegality and Rupture of the Constitutional Court's Current Status

  • The video argues that the current Constitutional Court was illegally constituted and proceeded illegally when Judgment No. 1 of 2026 (憲判字第1號) was made, and has remained in an illegal state ever since.
  • It points out that the Constitutional Court is severely fractured internally, with five Justices, Hsieh Ming-yang (謝銘洋), Lu Tai-lang (呂太郎), Tsai Tsung-jen (蔡彩貞), Chen Chung-wu (陳忠五), and Yu Po-hsiang (尤伯祥), on one side, continuing deliberations and issuing judgments. Meanwhile, three other Justices, Tsai Tsung-jen (蔡宗珍), Yang Hui-ling (楊惠欽), and Chu Fu-mei (朱富美), have consistently refused to participate in deliberations.
  • It criticizes these five Justices for excluding the three Justices who refused to participate in deliberations from the quorum calculation for deliberations and forcibly rendering judgments, likening it to "the Justices' self-resurrection decision." This severely contradicts the Constitution and the principle of the rule of law, and has led to severe conflicts within our constitutional system.
  • Citing Professor Lin Teng-yao (林騰耀)'s perspective, it emphasizes that prioritizing "good human rights protection" while disregarding "procedural due process" is fundamentally in strong opposition to the principle of the rule of law.
  • The video believes that this practice of "a minority of Justices excluding another minority of Justices" is a "reckless violation of the Constitution's own provisions for majority rule" by these five Justices, and questions "what ulterior motives they have."
  • In the reasoning of the judgment, the five Justices forcefully accused the three Justices who refused to deliberate of "completely lacking rationality" and having "questionable intentions." They further stated that their actions were aimed at "obstructing procedural progress" and were "not permitted by the Constitution." This further highlights the internal rupture within the Constitutional Court.

• Content and Controversies of Judgment No. 1 of 2026

  • This judgment concerns the case of [Attorney's Quasi-Appeal against a Detention Order]. Its core lies in interpreting the scope of appeal rights under Article 416, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • Interpretation of the Main Text of the Judgment:
    • Article 416, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that a person subject to a detention order issued by the presiding judge, assigned judge, or commissioned judge may apply for its revocation or modification.
    • Article 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the application of Chapter 1 of Part III (Appeals) concerning appeals.
    • The judgment explicitly states that the applicant for "revocation or modification of a detention order" as stipulated in Article 416, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply Article 346 of Chapter 1, Part III of the same Act, concerning persons entitled to appeal.
    • This means that, unless the defendant explicitly objects, the defendant's attorney may, for the defendant's benefit, apply to the court for the revocation or modification of a detention order issued by the presiding judge, assigned judge, or commissioned judge. This interpretation aligns with the intent of Article 8 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, and Article 16, which guarantees the right to litigation.
  • Constitutional Review and Case Handling: The judgment overturned Criminal Ruling No. 19 of 2023 (生字19號) by the Taiwan Pingtung District Court and remanded the case to that court for further deliberation in accordance with the judgment's intent, to ensure the accurate application of the appeal provisions in Article 416, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • Affirmation of Human Rights Protection and Questioning of Procedural Legality: The video affirms the positive significance of the judgment's substantive content for the protection of fundamental human rights (especially detention rights), as detention is the most severe coercive measure interfering with personal liberty. A defendant in detention finds it difficult to defend themselves and relies on timely and effective assistance from their attorney. In the past, the distinction in practice between detention rulings by the "court" and detention orders by the "presiding judge/assigned judge/commissioned judge" led to restricted appeal rights for attorneys, which was a long-standing distortion in judicial practice regarding the legitimate exercise of attorney's duties. However, the video strongly questions whether, even if the judgment's content is benevolent, a decision rendered by a Constitutional Court that is illegal in both its organization and procedures can still be considered legitimate as a whole.

• Dilemma of National Examinations and Academic Conscience

  • Despite raising serious doubts about the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court, the video expresses that, due to the demands of national examinations, it must still explain the content of these "illegal" judgments.
  • It is anticipated that Judgment No. 1 of 2026 (憲判字第1號) may still become a test point in national examinations due to its involvement in fundamental human rights protection and the interpretation of relevant legal norms. While Judgment No. 1 of 2025 (憲判字第1號) (the "Justices' self-resurrection case), due to its highly controversial nature, has a lower likelihood of appearing in national examinations, it is not entirely impossible.
  • It criticizes some examination setters who, perhaps seeking "favorable attention" or joining the "ranks of vested interests," disregard academic conscience and choose to include these controversial judgments in exam questions.
  • The video expresses "extreme discomfort" and "shame" regarding this situation, believing this leads to immense division and pressure for legal practitioners and examinees, forcing them to learn "correct answers" based on an "illegal" foundation, thus solidifying complex constitutional conflicts within test questions.
  • It calls for constitutional difficulties to ultimately be resolved through political or cross-party negotiations, rather than allowing the internal rupture of the Constitutional Court to persist, leading to the passive acceptance of the "biased views" of a minority of Justices.