Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 177 states that J.Y. Interpretations sought by individuals shall also affect cases for which the Interpretations were sought. J.Y. Interpretation No. 185 states that Article 78 of the Constitution authorizes the Judicial Yuan to interpret the Constitution and render uniform interpretations of laws and regulations, implying that J.Y. Interpretations bind all government offices and people in the territory, that every government office has to apply J.Y. Interpretations in its handling of relevant matters, that judicial precedents (panli) which are inconsistent with J.Y. Interpretations are invalid, and that when the Judicial Yuan declares a statute or regulation unconstitutional but invalid only after a prescribed period of time, the individual person who applied for constitutional interpretation may seek re-trial or extraordinary appeal of the cases for which the Interpretation was sought. Both J.Y. Interpretation No. 177 and No. 185 enable applicants to seek remedies for cases for which the Interpretation was sought, but they do not explicitly address the issue of whether an Interpretation that declares a statute or regulation unconstitutional but invalid only after a prescribed period of time should affect the cases for which the Interpretation was sought. Therefore, there is a need for a supplemental Interpretation.
The Judicial Yuan may declare a statute or regulation unconstitutional but invalid only after a prescribed period of time for the following reasons. First, the Judicial Yuan respects relevant government offices’ powers to adjust laws and regulations. Second, the Judicial Yuan also considers the nature of the laws and regulations at issue, the sectors they impact, and the time required for the legislative or rule-promulgation process to play out. Third, based on these two premises, the Judicial Yuan does not want to declare a statute or regulation unconstitutional and therefore invalid immediately; this can cause a vacuum in the law on a particular issue or a sudden, tremendous impact on the legal order. The Judicial Yuan also hopes to give relevant government offices time to deliberate thoroughly and carefully so that their laws or regulations are consistent with J.Y. Interpretations. These considerations, however, do not change the substance of J.Y. Interpretations of the law or regulations at issue as unconstitutional. Interpretations No. 177 and 185 empower applicants to seek remedies in cases for which the Interpretation was sought so that the rights and interests of the applicants may be protected and their contributions to the Constitution affirmed. Further, for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of the applications as well as upholding the Constitution, when the Judicial Yuan declares a statute or regulation unconstitutional but invalid only after a prescribed period of time, the individual who applied for constitutional interpretation may seek a re-trial in the cases for which the Interpretation was sought, as well as other remedies. An example of such other remedies include a re-trial (chongxin shenli) by the Juvenile Court as provided for in Article 64-1, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the Juvenile Delinquency Act. The Prosecutor General (jiancha zongzhang) may also make an “extraordinary appeal” (feichang shangsu). Courts cannot dismiss such requests for re-trial or extraordinary appeal on the ground that the statute or regulation remained valid during the prescribed period of time. If the Judicial Yuan declares specific remedies in cases for which the Interpretation was sought, the courts should adjudicate the re-trial and extraordinary appeal in accordance with the Judicial Yuan’s declaration. If the Judicial Yuan does not declare remedies specifically for cases for which the Interpretation was sought, the courts should adjudicate a re-trial or extraordinary appeal after a new statute or regulation takes effect. This Interpretation is a supplemental Interpretation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 177 and No. 185. The part of Pan Zi Precedent (panli) No. 615 of the Supreme Administrative Court (2008) that is inconsistent with this Interpretation ceases to be binding after this Interpretation is announced.
Article 273, Section 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act (xingzheng susong fa) states that, when a statute or regulation that is applied in final judgments is declared unconstitutional, the applicant may seek a re-trial (zaishen). Article 273, Section 2, however, does not preclude a re-trial in cases where a final judgment is rendered and the statute or regulation on which the final judgment is based has been declared unconstitutional but invalid only after a prescribed period of time. Therefore, Article 273, Section 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act (xingzheng susong fa) is not inconsistent with J.Y. Interpretations No. 177, No. 185, and this Interpretation, and therefore is constitutional.
The following pleadings are dismissed on procedural grounds:
(1) Several applicants seek a supplemental Interpretation for J.Y. Interpretation No. 188, but that Interpretation addressed the effects of the uniform interpretation made by Judicial Yuan, which is distinct from the issue of the present Interpretation (addressing the effects of an interpretation that declares a statute or regulation unconstitutional but invalid only after a prescribed period of time).
(2) One applicant, when challenging the constitutionality of Article 178, Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Securities Trading Act (zhengquan jiaoyi fa), as passed on July 19, 2000, and Article 273, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, fails to specify objectively why such clauses are unconstitutional.
(3) One applicant challenges the constitutionality of Article 8, Section 1 and Article 8, Section 2 (second half of the section) of the Rules and Review Procedures for Director and Supervisor Share Ownership Ratios at Public Companies (gongkai faxing gongsi dongshi jiancha ren guquan chengshu ji chahe shishi guize), as promulgated on May 13, 1997. Such a challenge, however, is rendered moot by J.Y. Interpretation 638, which has declared such clauses unconstitutional.
(4) Another applicant challenges the constitutionality of Article 36, Section 1 (first half) of the Urban Renewal Act (dushi gengxin tiaoli), as revised on May 12, 2010. (The same rule is also found in the first half of Section 1 Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Act as promulgated on November 11, 1998 and in the same clause as revised on January 16, 2008.) However, as the disputed provision is not applied in the final judgment on the basis of which the applicant brought the case to the Judicial Yuan, the Judicial Yuan cannot consider its constitutionality.
(5) Two other applicants separately apply for supplemental Interpretations of J.Y. Interpretation No. 658 and No. 709, respectively, but their pleadings fail to support the need for a supplemental Interpretation. The aforementioned pleadings are dismissed on procedural grounds, as they are inconsistent with Article 5, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Act for the Adjudication Procedure for Judicial Yuan Grand Justices (sifayuan dafaguan shenli anjian fa) and should thus be dismissed pursuant to Article 5, Section 3 of the same Act.
______________________
＊ Translated by Chi CHUNG.