When the litigating parties are uncertain about an Interpretation rendered by the Constitutional Court as applied by a court of last instance in its final judgment or ruling and petition for supplementary interpretation, the Constitutional Court should consider whether there exist legitimate grounds, and, if there are legitimate grounds, it should consider the case on its merits rather than dismiss the petition as a matter of procedure (see J.Y. Interpretation No. 503). The petitioner in this case concerning urban renewal appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which, as the court of last instance, applied J.Y. Interpretation No. 725 (hereinafter referred to as the disputed Interpretation) in its final ruling. The disputed Interpretation does not explicitly define the phrase “petitioner’s case for which he or she is requesting an interpretation of the Constitution”. Therefore, this Court ruled favorably in regard to the petition for a supplementary interpretation.
J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 177 and 185 allow petitioners for constitutional interpretations to rely on the constitutional interpretations that rule in their favor when seeking a retrial or extraordinary appeal. As J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 177 and 185 did not clearly set out whether a constitutional interpretation declaring a statute or regulation unconstitutional but invalid only after a prescribed period affects the disposition of the case for which the petitioner sought a constitutional interpretation, the disputed interpretation supplements J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 177 and 185 as follows: “When this Court, upon a person’s petition for a constitutional interpretation, declares a statute or regulation that has been applied by a court of last instance in its final judgment or ruling unconstitutional but invalid only after the expiration of a prescribed period of time, the petitioner may rely on the interpretation rendered by this Court to seek a retrial of the case or other redresses. The Prosecutor General may rely on the Judicial Interpretation to make an extraordinary appeal. The relevant courts may not dismiss such a retrial or extraordinary appeal for the reason that the disputed statute or regulation is still in effect. If a specific remedy is announced in the Judicial Interpretation for the case for which the petitioner sought a constitutional interpretation, such announcement should be followed. If no such announcement is made, then the relevant courts should wait for the promulgation of a new statute or regulation and make the judgment or ruling in accordance with that new statute or regulation after it takes effect. J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 177 and 185 are thereby supplemented.”
When this Court declares a statute or regulation unconstitutional, the petitioner may rely on the constitutional interpretation rendered by this Court to seek a retrial of the case for which the petitioner sought a constitutional interpretation, or the Prosecutor General may file an extraordinary appeal or take other legal actions. The purpose of granting remedies in the case for which the petitioner sought a constitutional interpretation is to protect the rights and interests of petitioners and to recognize their contributions to upholding the Constitution (see the Reasoning part of the disputed Interpretation). This purpose does not differ depending on whether the unconstitutional statute or regulation becomes invalid immediately or after the expiration of a prescribed period of time. The disputed Interpretation, therefore, announced that when a statute or regulation applied by a court of last instance in its final judgment or ruling becomes invalid after the expiration of the prescribed period of time, the petitioner may seek a retrial and other forms of redress for the case for which the petitioner sought a constitutional interpretation. Although the disputed Interpretation did not explicitly define the phrase “the case for which the petitioner sought a constitutional interpretation”, the Holding part of the disputed Interpretation stated that “this Court, at the request of an individual applying for a constitutional interpretation, declares that the statute or regulation applied by a court of last instance in its final judgment or ruling becomes invalid after the expiration of the prescribed period of time.” Therefore, all cases giving rise to Judicial Interpretations that declare a statute or regulation applied by a court of last instance in its final judgment or ruling invalid after the expiration of a prescribed time period should be given a retrial or other remedy. In addition, the disputed Interpretation sets out a systematic rule that applies to all Judicial Interpretations made by this Court that declare a statute or regulation invalid after the expiration of a prescribed period of time, including Judicial Interpretations that were made before J.Y. Interpretation No. 725. All of these petitioners for such Judicial Interpretations may seek redress in the cases for which the petitioner sought a constitutional interpretation, so that the rights and interests of the petitioners for J.Y. Interpretations will be protected. The disputed Interpretation does not limit itself to the petitioner for the disputed Interpretation; rather, it enables all petitioners for Judicial Interpretations to obtain the redresses that they deserve after the statute or regulation was declared unconstitutional and invalid following the expiration of the prescribed period of time. The aforementioned understanding is consistent with the right to litigate protected by the Constitution, and it recognizes the petitioners’ contributions to upholding the Constitution. J.Y. Interpretation No. 725 is, hereby, supplemented. Of course, courts still must review whether the petitioners satisfy the relevant filing deadlines and whether other procedural requirements for retrial have been met, as well as judge whether the petitioners’ cases have merit.
The petitioner also petitions for a supplementary interpretation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 709, but the petitioner fails to point out specifically which part of Interpretation No. 709 is unclear in language or unsound in reasoning. Therefore, the application for supplementary interpretation of Interpretation No. 709 is inconsistent with Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and, therefore, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the same Act.
______________________
*Translation and Note by Chi CHUNG
**Also available in Leading Cases of the Taiwan Constitutional Court, Vol. III (2020).