Article 2, Paragraph 3, of the Amendment to the Constitution provides that the President may, by resolution of the Executive Yuan Council, issue emergency decrees and take necessary measures to avert imminent catastrophe which may endanger the State or the people, or to cope with any serious financial or economic crisis. Article 155 of the Constitution also provides that the State shall give immediate and appropriate emergency assistance and relief to victims of a catastrophe. Regarding the subject, conditions and scope of the relief, the government, in accordance with the principle of equality, and in consideration of the national financial capability, the effective use of resources and other circumstances, has broader discretion to take necessary measures to promulgate appropriate regulations. The destructive earthquake that devastated many areas of Taiwan on September 21, 1999, caused extreme hardship for the people and extensive damage to property in Taiwan. In order to implement disaster relief, provide temporary housing for the victims, and to rebuild the disaster area, the President issued an Emergency Decree according to the abovementioned regulations of the Constitution on September 25 of the same year. J.Y. Interpretation No. 543 held that though the procedure for the issuance of the Emergency Decree and the supplementary regulations made by the executive authorities were not fully in compliance with the procedures set out in said Interpretation, they could hardly be considered unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the content of the decree must be in line with the principle of the Constitution so as to maintain the constitutional system .
The Emergency Decrees have the effect of temporarily replacing or altering the law. Article 1 of the Emergency Decree provides that in order to allocate financial resources for the rebuilding of the areas devastated by the catastrophe, the central government shall temporarily reduce certain expenditures, alter the budgets of the central and local governments when necessary, adjust the revenue and disbursement to meet urgent need, and issue government bonds or raise loans of no more than the amount of eighty billion New Taiwan dollars (NT$80,000,000,000) to be utilized by the Executive Yuan pursuant to the plans of relief and rebuilding. Such plans may be executed directly by the various agencies of the central government, and the payments may be paid partly in advance when necessary. Moreover, Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4, of the Execution Outlines Guidelines provides that the items of expenditures of the plan of relief and rebuilding as indicated in Article 1 of the Emergency Decree shall include relief, subsidy and exemption for victims.One of the purposes of the abovementioned Article 1 of the Emergency Decree and Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4, of the Execution Outlines Guidelines is to empower the executive bodies to provide immediate relief to victims, taking the financial capability of the State, the effective use of resources, and other circumstances into consideration, which is consistent with Article 155 of the Constitution. Furthermore, to ensure the swiftness and efficacy of the enforcement, the executive bodies of the Emergency Decree shall not be limited to the Executive Yuan of the central government. It may be enforced directly by respective competent authorities of the central government in accordance with the various types of activities relevant to disaster relief, temporary housing of victims, and rebuilding of the areas devastated by the catastrophe. The Ministry of the Interior is one of the competent authorities of the central government empowered to enforce the Decree.
To enforce the abovementioned Emergency Decree, the Ministry of the Interior afforded relief and subsidy to the victims whose houses were severely damaged or completely destroyed by the 921 earthquake, and issued the Directives Tai(88)-Nei-She-Zi-No.8885465 (September 30, 1999), Tai(88)-Nei-She-Zi-No.8882339 (October 1, 1999) and Tai(88)-Nei-She-Zi-No.8885711 (October 30,1999). The directives stipulate that, for houses which were severely damaged or completely destroyed by the 921 earthquake, the owners may apply for emergency subsidy only if they have household registration and actually resided in the devastated areas before the occurrence of the earthquake, and the recipient of the subsidy should be the head of the household or the resident. The subsidy cannot be given to victims who did not actually reside in a damaged house. As to victims who resided in the devastated areas, but did not have their household registration, they may apply for the relief with an affidavit certified by the chief of the village or the neighborhood, provided that the application is made within a certain period. After the 921 earthquake, victims were exposed to the natural elements when their houses collapsed or were severely damaged. Their physical and mental well-being and their property were severely affected. They could hardly maintain their basic way of life; hence they needed immediate relief from the State. Compared with the people who did not actually reside in damaged houses, needed immediate assistance, as the former still had places to stay. The abovementioned directives were issued after considering the conditions of the disaster area and the need of immediate relief to preserve life. The directives stipulate that if the houses were severely damaged or completely destroyed by the 921 earthquake, victims may apply for relief only if they have household registration and did actually live in the disaster area. The directives also provide that the application shall be made within a certain period of time. The purpose is to implement the abovementioned Emergency Decree and the Execution Guidelines with reasonable preferential treatment. It does not go beyond the scope of said Emergency Decree and Execution Guidelines nor does it conflict with Article 7 of the Constitution. The subsidy of the immediate relief is to provide assistance to the victims, not to compensate them for the loss of property. It does not result in any restraint on the property and rights of the people in case of rejection of the application of those dissatisfied with the requirement. Consequently, there is no breach of Article 23 of the Constitution.
* Translated by David Yang and Alfred Huang of Baker&Mckenzie Law Offices, Taipei