According to Article 171, Paragraph 2, and Article 172 of the Constitution, laws that are in conflict with the Constitution, and orders that are in conflict with the Constitution or laws, shall be null and void. They refer to the content of the laws that are in contravention with the Constitution and the content of the orders that are in contravention with the Constitution or laws. In the event either of the above applies to any of the laws or orders cited by a final court judge, it shall be regarded as to be clearly erroneous in the application of law or a judgment against the law. Should a question of constitutionality arise, the people may seek relief through lawful procedures, after proclamation of this Yuan*s Interpretation, if the said final court judgment has been determined by this Yuan, upon the people*s petition, to be in breach of the Constitution, and the parties affected are aggrieved by it. The foregoing has been explained by this Yuan*s Interpretation Nos.177 and 185.
Judgment P.T. No.610 (Ad.Ct., 1963) states: "Article 24 of the Administrative Proceedings Act stipulates that if any provision in Article 496 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies, the relevant parties may appeal against this Court*s judgment. Reference to “clearly erroneous in the application of law” in Article 496, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure means the laws cited in the original judgment are in conflict with the existing laws that are applicable to the said case, or with Interpretations or Precedents. Differing views on the law, even if the appellant finds them arguable, cannot be regarded as misapplication of law or used as a reason for retrial." The foregoing explains that laws cited in the original judgment will only satisfy the element of appeal, being "clearly erroneous in the application of law" if they are in conflict with the applicable laws, interpretations and precedents existing at the time. This ensures the protection of the people*s rights and maintenance of social welfare. Except for the section which opines: "If laws or orders cited in final and binding judgments or the interpretations of such laws or orders are determined as being in conflict with the Constitution by this Yuan upon the people*s petition for an interpretation, the person aggrieved by such final and binding judgment may apply for a retrial or extraordinary appeal pursuant to the said interpretation. That is no longer a matter of differing views as to the law. The incongruent segments in Judgment P.T. No. 610 (Ad.Ct., 1963) shall forthwith cease to be applicable", the remaining parts of the said Judgment are not in contravention with Article 7 of the Constitution.
With respect to this Yuan*s Interpretation No.177 and its statement that: "Interpretations delivered by this Yuan upon the people*s petition shall be equally applicable to the case regarding which the applicant files a petition", it permits the applicant to seek relief according to lawful procedures if the results of an interpretation of the Constitution petition by the applicant are advantageous to such applicant. If the applicant is involved in several cases concerning the same law which is contended to have infringed upon the Constitution, these cases should be joined in the petition; those that are not joined but have met the legal requirements set forth in the interpretation, around the time of its proclamation, may also be applicable. The abovementioned Interpretation refers to an Interpretation delivered by this Yuan upon the people*s petition. Thus, it may apply to cases, involving the applicant, which concern the same law and are contended to have infringed upon the Constitution. The foregoing is not in contravention with Article 7 of the Constitution.
*Translated by Wei-Feng Huang of THY Taiwan International Law Offices.