The public functionary has petitioned the competent authorities and the personnel authorities, respectively, for a review and a second review of the decision at issue pursuant to relevant laws and, by doing so or resorting to other similar procedures to petition for relief, an administrative appeal and re-appeal proceeding should be deemed to have been sought. If such public functionary is not satisfied with the decisions of the aforesaid authorities and believes that his lawful rights have been infringed upon thereby, he should be allowed to bring an administrative litigation so as to bring the matter in line with the legal principle that there is a remedy where there is a right. Precedent P.T. No. 398 (Ad. Ct. 1962) says, “According to Article 1 of the Administrative Appeal Act, no administrative appeal may be instituted unless any right or interest of a person is infringed upon as a result of an inequitable or illegal disposition made by either a central or a local government agency. In respect of the disciplinary measure received by a public functionary, regardless of the level of the government in which such public functionary is serving, in his capacity as a public functionary, no such administrative appeal may be brought in connection therewith because such measure differs in its nature from the disposition made by a government agency which infringes upon the rights of anyone as a civilian.” Precedent P.T. No. 229 (Ad. Ct. 1964) states, “An administrative act subjecting a public functionary to any disciplinary action in his capacity as a public functionary is purely a matter of administrative discretion, which is not comparable to a disposition made by a government agency which infringes upon the rights of anyone as a civilian, and, as such, no administrative appeal may be instituted under any administrative appeal proceedings in respect thereof. In spite of the discharge of the Plaintiff from his office and, consequently, loss of his capacity as a public functionary, no administrative appeal may be filed by the Plaintiff, who should not be regarded as a civilian having been subjected to an administrative decision made by a government agency, because the administrative act at issue occurred at a time when the Plaintiff was still a public functionary.” “An administrative suit may not be brought unless and until a plaintiff has filed an administrative appeal and, subsequently, an administrative re-appeal against such government agency as has made an illegal disposition which infringed upon the right of such plaintiff who is not satisfied with the decisions rendered therein. The Plaintiff, in his capacity as a public functionary, was subjected to an administrative act in respect of personnel administration, which is apparently different from the situation where a disposition made by a government agency infringes upon the right of anyone as a civilian. Other than filing with the relevant supervising authorities in charge of the matter at issue for a corrective decision in regard thereto, no administrative litigation procedure should be resorted to for relief. As an additional note, the notice given by the Secretariat of the Examination Yuan is not a decision made under the procedure applicable to an administrative appeal and, therefore, the Plaintiff has erred in bringing an unlawful administrative suit in this Yuan,” so reasoned the court in Precedent T.T. No. 19 (Ad. Ct. 1965). And, finally, Precedent P.T. No. 414 (Ad. Ct. 1968) restated, “An administrative act subjecting a public functionary to any disciplinary action in his capacity as a public functionary is purely a matter of administrative discretion, which should be distinguished from a disposition made by a government agency which infringes upon the rights of anyone as a civilian, and, as such, no administrative appeal may be instituted against such agency in respect thereof.” None of the aforesaid Precedents has tried to distinguish between contents of the administrative acts but, instead, has restricted the right of a public functionary to file an administrative appeal legally and to bring an administrative litigation altogether. Those portions of the opinions as given in such Precedents, which are not in line with the intent described above, should no longer be cited and applied. In respect of the mere decision of a major demerit made under the Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act, since the capacity of a public functionary is not altered thereby and, thus, no right of a national to hold public office is directly affected, the aforesaid precedents, in denying the public functionary his right to seek relief through litigation, are not in violation of the Constitution.