According to the applicable provisions of the Regulations Governing the Handling of Non-Duty Officers in the Armed Forces, as approved by the Executive Yuan on July 14, 1959, and promulgated by the Ministry of National Defense, a non-duty officer in Taiwan is not eligible for a land grant certificate if he is away from his military post even though his military status is still maintained because the Act Governing Land Grants to Anti-Communist and Anti-Soviet Soldiers, as promulgated on October 18, 1951, means that only those soldiers still stationed at their military posts are eligible for such land grant certificates.  Article 10 of the Act Governing the Handling of Land Grant Certificates for Soldiers, as promulgated on April 23, 1990, provides, “A land grant certificate is deemed to have been issued to a veteran non-duty officer in Taiwan away from his military post who participated in the anti-communist-and-Soviet conflict prior to the promulgation and implementation of the Act Governing Land Grants to Anti-Communist and Anti-Soviet Soldiers and the relevant provisions of this Act shall thus apply, if such officer has received a certificate of retirement/discharge from military service and presently lives in Taiwan, provided, however, that he has not committed treason or engaged in any rebellious act or has deserted the army, for which a penalty of more than a fixed-term of imprisonment was imposed.” Such provision, having equitably taken into consideration the situations described above, does not support any discriminatory treatment based on the status of officer or soldier and, therefore, does not contradict Article 7 of the Constitution.

       According to Article 2 of the Regulations Governing the Handling of Non-Duty Officers in the Armed Forces, as approved by the Executive Yuan on July 14, 1959, and promulgated by the Ministry of National Defense on August 13 of the same year, a non-duty officer in Taiwan away from his military post shall mean an officer whose service is suspended, or whose name is off the regular muster roll, or who is laid off, or who, for any other reason, leaves his post without duly completing the applicable procedure related to either retirement/ discharge from military service or a provisional retirement/discharge from military service. The competent authority, i.e., the Ministry of National Defense, conducted a registration for such personnel to maintain their military status and, subsequently, either entered their names on a control list or completed the procedure for such personnel’s retirement/discharge from military service pursuant to the applicable provisions of the aforesaid Regulations. 

       Consequently, even though such personnel still maintained their military status after the Act Governing Land Grants to Anti-Communist and Anti-Soviet Soldiers was promulgated on October 18, 1951, they are not eligible for land grant certificates since they are away from their military posts because, under Article 11 of the said Regulations, a land grant certificate is meant only for those “soldiers who have served either in the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force for two years or more.”  Article 10 of the Act Governing the Handling of Land Grant Certificates for Soldiers, as promulgated on April 23, 1990, provides, “A land grant certificate is deemed to have been issued to a veteran non-duty officer in Taiwan away from his military post who participated in the anti-communist-and-Soviet conflict prior to the promulgation and implementation of the Act Governing Land Grants to Anti-Communist and Anti-Soviet Soldiers and the relevant provisions of this Act shall thus apply, if such officer has received a certificate of retirement/discharge from military service and presently lives in Taiwan, provided, however, that he has not committed treason or engaged in any rebellious act or has deserted the army, for which a penalty of more than a fixed-term of imprisonment was imposed.”  Such provision, having equitably taken into consideration the situations described above, does not support any discriminatory treatment based on the status of officer or soldier and, therefore, does not contradict Article 7 of the Constitution.

*Translated by Vincent C. Kuan