Article 16 of the Constitution guaranteeing people the right to judicial remedy means that a person shall have the right to judicial remedy when his/her right or legal interest has been infringed upon. Based on the constitutional principle that where there is a right, there is a remedy, when a person’s right or legal interest has been infringed upon, the State shall provide such person an opportunity to institute a court proceeding, to request a fair trial in accordance with the due process of law, and to obtain timely and effective remedies. Restricting the right to remedy simply on the basis of status or occupation is constitutionally impermissible (see J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 430 and 653).
Article 33 of the Teachers Act reads:
If a teacher is unwilling to file an administrative complaint, or is not satisfied with the outcome of an administrative complaint and a review of administrative complaint, he/she may, based on the nature of the case, file a lawsuit according to law or seek remedy in accordance with the Administrative Appeal Act, the Administrative Court Procedure Act, or other laws protecting the rights of teachers.
This Article merely prescribes the remedial procedures when a teacher finds his/her right or legal interest has been infringed upon. It does not restrict the right of a public school teacher to initiate an administrative suit and thus does not violate the protection of the people’s right to judicial remedy under Article 16 of the Constitution. A teacher who finds his/her right or legal interest has been infringed upon by a specific administrative action of his/her school (such as citation of absence without valid reasons, docking of pay, no pay raise after annual performance review, teaching evaluation, etc.) is entitled to file a lawsuit in court either pursuant to the Administrative Court Procedure Act or the Code of Civil Procedure, in the same manner as ordinary people. Thus the constitutional principle of “where there is a right, there is a remedy” will be fulfilled. It goes without saying that the court reviewing such cases should, to an adequate extent, defer to the judgment made by the school based upon its expertise and familiarity with the facts (see J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 382 and 684).
One of the petitioners also petitions for overturning or supplementing J.Y. Interpretation No.382, which dealt with the issue of the remedy for students who are subject to restrictive actions taken by a school. The Supreme Administrative Court Judgment 100-Pan-1127 (2011) quoted J.Y. Interpretation No. 382 simply for clarifying the legal status of a public school, an institution established by governments at various levels according to law to carry out educational functions and possessing the status of an administrative agency. It did not apply the said Interpretation to decide whether public school teachers can sue against specific actions by their schools. Thus, J.Y. Interpretation No. 382 may not be challenged in this petition. The petitioner also alleges that Article 2, Paragraph 3, Subparagraphs 3 and 6 of the Guidelines for Evaluating Teachers of National Cheng Kung University are in conflict with J.Y. Interpretation No. 432 because the phrases “outstanding contribution” and “specific and distinguished (achievement)” of the qualifications for exemption from merit evaluation are void for vagueness. In addition, a professional judgment made by the department’s faculty evaluation committee may be overturned, as its evaluation must be reviewed by the faculty evaluation committees of each college and the University. Such review procedure is inconsistent with the protection of academic freedom and the ruling of J.Y. Interpretation No. 462. We find this part of the petition has failed to elaborate how the said Guidelines and procedure contradict the Constitution. Therefore, these two parts of the petition were not duly submitted under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and are dismissed in accordance with Paragraph 3 of the same Article.
______________________
＊Translated by Ed Ming-Hui HUANG.
＊＊Also available in Leading Cases of the Taiwan Constitutional Court, Vol. I (2018).