The Constitution guarantees the people a right to education. And a person whose right guaranteed by the Constitution is illegally infringed upon is entitled pursuant to Article 16 of the Constitution to administrative appeal as well as ultimately to sue in a court, regardless of his/her status. Such an opinion has been reiterated repeatedly in Interpretations Nos. 187, 201, 243, 266, 295, 298, 312, 323 and 338 rendered by the Judicial Yuan regarding people possessing the status of civil servants or others yet involved in litigation.
Public schools as institutions established by various levels of governments pursuant to laws and regulations to carry out educational functions possess the status of administrative agencies. Private schools as institutions established pursuant to the Private School Act and approved by the competent educational agency with an authorized official seal have the authority to carry out educational functions, such as selecting, enrolling, and disciplining students as well as issuing degree certificates. Private schools to such an extent are educational institutions authorized by law to exercise public authority within a specified scope and should be regarded as possessing a status equivalent to administrative agencies (See J.Y. Interpretation No. 269). An expulsion or similar action taken by a public or private school of any level against a student in accordance with its student codes or disciplinary regulations will change that student’s status and hinder his/her opportunity to receive an education. Such a disciplinary action shall be deemed as an administrative act subject to administrative appeal and administrative litigation in light of its significant impact on the people’s right to education guaranteed by the Constitution. Whether a person suffering from such an action because of his/her student status is entitled to administrative appeal and administrative litigation depends upon the contents of the action in dispute. Whenever a disciplinary action, such as recording a demerit or reprimand, is necessary for the maintenance of a school’s order or realization of educational purposes and does not infringe upon the student’s right to education, the student(s) affected should only be allowed to appeal within the school, and not be allowed to bring administrative appeal and litigation. On the contrary, when a student suffers expulsion or similar actions that in fact affect his/her right to education, he/she is entitled to administrative appeal and administrative litigation pursuant to the law after having exhausted all remedies available within the school. To the extent that it is contrary to this Interpretation, the ruling of Precedent P.T. No. 6 of the Administrative Court in 1952 stating that, “schools are different from agencies; the relationship between a school and its students is also different from that between the people and an agency; when a transfer decision made by a school against a student is considered inappropriate, the affected student may only request the agency that committed the oversight to correct it, and can not bring administrative appeal pursuant to the Administrative Appeal Act,” should no longer be applied, so that the right to education and the right of instituting legal proceedings guaranteed by the Constitution can be secured.
In addition, an agency or a court reviewing such an expulsion or similar action should defer to the decision on judgment of moral character, evaluation of academic performance or choice of disciplinary measures made by the teacher(s) and school based upon their expertise and familiarity with the facts. Such a decision can be revoked or altered only when the judgment or discretion involved is illegal or obviously inappropriate.
*Translated by Dennis T. C. Tang.