Article 16 of the Constitution refers to the right of the people to request for relief from a court of law in the event that their rights are harmed and to the court’s obligation to try the case in accordance with the law. This judicial beneficiary right not only, as a matter of formality, protects the right of the people to assert their rights in a court of law, but also, as a practical matter, ensures that the individual’s rights are indeed being effectively protected. The methods of judicial relief include having an ordinary court of law render judgment on civil matters, criminal matters or administrative disputes, or, in addition to the ordinary courts of law, setting up a separate administrative court to deal with administrative disputes. Irrespective of which method is being adopted, their rights do not vary in that the people have the right to request for relief from a court of law in the event that their rights are harmed by reason of unlawful administrative acts. With respect to the allocation by the legislative authorities of administrative disputes of a special nature to which type of court for determination, and the applicable judicial procedures, such matters fall within the discretion of the legislators and should be determined by the legislators taking into account factors such as the substantive content of the right in question, the nature of the dispute and the function of the existing litigation system, and enact reasonable rules accordingly.
The types of punishment enumerated in the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations include fines, suspension of driver’s license and confiscation of license plates. These are administrative penalties imposed by the administrative authorities for behaviors that violate traffic regulations. Article 87 of the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations provides that “where the offender is not satisfied with the punishment imposed by the competent authorities in accordance with Article 8, the offender may, within fifteen days from the day next to the day of receipt of the determination, raise his/her objections to the competent district court;” “a court may render a ruling when dealing with the aforesaid objection;” and “in the event that the offender is not satisfied with the ruling rendered in accordance with paragraph 2, the offender may appeal, however, the offender may not appeal against the ruling on appeal.” Therefore, the offender, who does not accept the punishment imposed by the administrative authorities for traffic violations, should be tried by the traffic court of an ordinary court of law and should not request for relief in the same way as the ordinary administrative disputes which follow the procedure of administrative appeal, re-appeal and administrative litigation. Such is formulated by the legislative authorities taking into account factors such as the nature of the right being impacted by the administrative punishment, the frequency of the events occurring, the urgency for final and binding judgments, and the capacity of the authorities dealing with the dispute, and also having regard to the characteristics of the dispute and the functions of the existing litigation system. The aforesaid legal provision not only provides the litigant the opportunity to raise objections and to offer evidence, but also provides a fair trial stipulated in Article 80 of the Constitution which requires judges to take into account the evidence and render fair judgment for the dispute in question accordingly. This is evidently in compliance with the due process of law. As is disclosed in the jurisprudence shown in the first paragraph of this reasoning, it is not in conflict with the intent of Article 16 of the Constitution ensuring the people’s right of instituting legal proceedings.