The purpose of Article 9 of the Enforcement Act of Civil Procedure Code, which provides that where an appellant represented by an attorney as his agent ad litem fails to pay court costs the court may determine not to order that an amendment be made within a fixed time limit, is to avoid delay of the proceeding. The provision thus does not interfere with the exercise of the right of instituting legal proceedings and the equality of legal standing of the people. Whether the statute should be made applicable mutatis mutandis to an action of retrial brought against an irrevocable judgment delivered by a court of first appeal or of the final appeal is a question of the application of law in adjudication, and for that reason the provision cannot be said to be contrary to the Constitution.

       The petitioner in the instant case states in essence that he brought an action for retrial through the representation of an attorney as his agent ad litem against the Supreme Court*s Precedent T.S.T. 1128 (Supreme Court, 1981), and that by its ruling T.T.T. 131 (1981), the Supreme Court, applying Article 9 of the Enforcement Act of Civil Procedure Code but without ordering an amendment, dismissed the action on the ground that the action for retrial was not brought in the proper form required by law because the petitioner failed to pay court costs. The petitioner thus applies for interpretation to be made by this Yuan on the ground that said Act invoked by the Supreme Court in the irrevocable final ruling at issue is arguably unconstitutional. 

       It must be noted that while the so-called people’s right of instituting legal proceedings under Article 16 of the Constitution means that the people shall have the right of instituting legal proceedings when their right has been injured, it also means that the court has the duty to adjudicate in accordance with law. The exercise of the right of instituting legal proceedings, however, must follow the formality prescribed by law. In view of the fact that not all litigants have knowledge of the procedural law, the law allows amendment to be made in case of any defect in formality. If a party has appointed an attorney as his agent ad litem for the institution of an appeal, however, the legal requirement in respect of payment of court costs is a formality with which the attorney should be familiar. Hence, to avoid delay of the proceeding, Article 9 of the Enforcement Act of Civil Procedure Code gives the court the power to decide at its discretion whether or not to order an amendment. The provision that the court may decide not to order an amendment does not interfere with the exercise of the people’s right of instituting legal proceedings.

       Moreover, while the Constitution provides in Article 7 that all citizens of the Republic of China, irrespective of sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation, shall be equal before the law, it does not prohibit reasonably differential statutory prescriptions based on age, occupation, and economic situations of and the special relations between people. Accordingly, Article 9 of the Enforcement Act of Civil Procedure Code does not interfere with the constitutional protection with respect to the equality of the people.

       Finally, whether the provision of Article 9 of the Enforcement Act of Civil Procedure Code in respect of the institution of appeals should be made applicable mutatis mutandis to an action of retrial brought against an irrevocable judgment delivered by a court of first appeal or of the final appeal is a question of the application of law in adjudication. Although the provision has a bearing on the protection of the people*s rights and interest, and the court, when invoking said article, must employ prudence in the exercise of its discretion, the statute cannot be said to be contrary to the Constitution.

*Translated by Raymond T. Chu.