Article 78 of the Constitution prescribes that the Judicial Yuan shall interpret the Constitution and shall have the power to unify the interpretation of laws and regulations. A petition for re-interpretation may be filed in accordance with Articles 4 and 7 of the Grand Justices Council Adjudication Act, should national or local government agencies, when applying Constitution, laws and regulations, have doubts concerning a previous interpretation made by this Council. This was decided in the 118th Council meeting. The concerned case was filed with this Council before by the Control Yuan, indicating that Explanation No. 3735 of the Judicial Yuan on the responsibility of magistrate councilors for expressed opinions and another interpretative rule made by the Ministry of the Interior were inconsistent with the Constitution. It was asserted that after the Constitution went into effect such interpretations should not have been made applicable to current members of the Provincial and Local Councils. This Council had considered such a petition and rendered Interpretation No. 122. However, because the Control Yuan is requesting re-interpretation of No. 122, based on the aforementioned meeting resolution, this Council makes this Interpretation accordingly.
Articles 32, 73 and 101 of the Constitution protect delegates of the National Assembly and members of the Legislative and Control Yuans from being held responsible for opinions expressed or votes cast at the meetings of the Assembly and in the Yuans. This is to assure the people*s national representatives* freedom of speech and vote in order for them to properly carry out their duty to express concerns about and criticisms of the government. The Constitution does not, however, expressly extend such protection to local representatives of the people, nor do the constitutions of other countries. Among them, some, such as that of Japan, do not extend such protection to local representatives (See the decision by the Grand Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Japan on May 24, 1967), while others may provide statutory protection such as our country’s does. For the Provincial and Local Councils to function well, they should enjoy self-governance and self-discipline within their legally prescribed jurisdictions and duties. Moreover, in the spirit of the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech of national representatives, it shall also be appropriate to extend such protection, in accordance with laws, to delegates of the Provincial and Local Councils regarding opinions expressed at the meetings. This is to safeguard delegates of the Provincial and Local Councils when expressing the people’s concerns about and criticisms of local governments. Nonetheless, since such protection is to assure that delegates of the Provincial and Local Councils properly carry out their duties, it shall be limited to matters with regard to discussing bills, addressing inquiries, etc., at the meetings. Should opinions on unrelated matters be expressed at the meetings and be libelous, defamatory, or in violation of laws, they shall be considered as abuses of such protection. Then, such protection shall be removed given the principle applicable to both public and private laws that those who abuse rights should no longer be protected in accordance with the rule of law. To sum up, delegates of the Provincial and Local Councils shall not be held responsible for opinions expressed at the Council meetings and with regard to matters of such meetings. Nevertheless, they shall be held responsible for expressed opinions that are unrelated to the subject matters and clearly in violation of laws. The foregoing shall supplement the explanation in this Yuan*s Interpretation No.122.