While Petitioner Chien-He LIN was driving a regular truck for self-use on Daqing Street, Taichung City and was approaching a railroad crossing (hereinafter referred to as the “Disputed Crossing”) at 16:16, on July 4, 2013, the signaling equipment of the Disputed Crossing was in operation. The barriers (crossing gates) of the Disputed Crossing started rising at 16:16:38 after a train had passed, but at 16:16:42, the alarm went off and warning lights flashed again. The Petitioner drove his truck forward at 16:16:46. After the alarm at the Disputed Crossing sounded continuously for 8 seconds, the barriers (crossing gates) started to lower at 16:16:51. From 16:16:54 to 16:17:00, the Petitioner drove forcibly across the Disputed Crossing, ramming and breaking the barriers (crossing gates). Consequently, he was cited by the police in accordance with Article 54, Subparagraph 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Disputed Provision One”) of the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act then in force (hereinafter referred to as the “Road Traffic Act”) and was referred to the Taichung Motor Vehicles Office, Directorate General of Highways, Ministry of Transportation and Communications (hereinafter referred to as the “TMVO”) for further handling. Considering that the Petitioner had “crossed the railroad crossing and caused an accident with the alarm already going off and the warning lights flashing,” the TMVO imposed a fine of NT$60,000 on Petitioner, revoked his truck driver’s license, permanently prohibited him from taking the driver’s license test and obtaining the driver’s license, and required him to take road traffic safety lessons in accordance with Disputed Provision One, as well as the Road Traffic Act Article 67, Paragraph 1 ( “Paragraph 1” was left out in the original disposition, hereinafter referred to as “Disputed Provision Two”) and Article 24, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 ( “Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4” was left out in the original disposition, hereinafter referred to as “Disputed Provision Three”). The Petitioner did not agree and initiated an administrative litigation. Pursuant to the Nantou District Court Administrative Litigation Judgment 102-Chiao-40 (2013), the plaintiff’s claims were determined to be unfounded and the lawsuit was dismissed. The Petitioner then filed an appeal to the Taichung High Administrative Court. The appeal was considered not in conformity with the law and was dismissed through the Taichung High Administrative Court Order 103-Chiao-Shang-44 (2014) on the grounds that the appeal failed to delineate in a concrete manner how the original judgment contravened laws or regulations. Therefore, the Nantou District Court Administrative Litigation Judgment 102-Chiao-40 (2013) shall be the final judgment for this case (the “Final Judgment”).
The Petitioner claimed that because the Road Traffic Act then in force was not comprehensive enough and was overly rigid, the courts could not render a fair and reasonable judgment that protects the rights and interests of the people in conformity with the Constitution based on the circumstances that have occurred to the Petitioner. Furthermore, the application of Disputed Provisions One, Two, and Three, in the Final Judgment deprived Petitioner of the opportunity to make a living, thus possibly violating the right to work and the right to property as guaranteed by Article 15 of the Constitution, as well as other freedoms and rights as protected by Article 22 of the Constitution. Accordingly, he petitioned for the J.Y. Interpretation. Given that Disputed Provisions One, Two, and Three were applied in the Final Judgment, the petition satisfies the requirements as specified by Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and shall be granted review. The Court hereby renders this Interpretation for the following reasons:
According to Article 15 of the Constitution, people’s right to work and right to property shall be guaranteed., The right to work includes people’s freedom to pursue a chosen occupation. However, as a matter of constitutional law, the restrictions on such freedom may have varying levels of stringency, depending upon the nature of the subject matter concerned. Regarding a person’s “subjective criteria” in choosing his/her occupation, such as intellect, physical capacity, or the record of previous convictions, the legislative restrictions, if imposed, must aim at furthering an important public interest by means that are materially related to that interest, in order to meet the requirements of the principle of proportionality (see the J.Y. Interpretation No. 749 for further reference). Administrative fines, if imposed upon those who violate their obligations under administrative law, restrict people’s property rights and thus the penalty shall be proportional to the responsibility so as to meet the requirements of the principle of proportionality (see the J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 685 and 716 for further reference). In addition to the freedoms and rights already protected by the Constitution, for the sake of individual autonomy and the free development of personality, people’s general freedom of willful action or inaction shall also be safeguarded by Article 22 of the Constitution, on the premise of not being detrimental to social order and public welfare (see J.Y. Interpretation No. 689 for further reference).
Disputed Provision One provides: “In any of the following events , car drivers who drive into or across a railroad crossing shall be fined between NT$15,000 and NT$60,000; if such behavior by a car driver should cause an accident, his/her driver license shall be revoked: 1. … continuing to cross railroad tracks when the alarm goes off, warning lights are flashing, or the crossing gates are being lowered” (as amended and promulgated on May 30, 2012; thereafter on November 16, 2016, it was amended as follows: “In any of the following events , car drivers who drive into or across a railroad crossing shall be fined between NT$15,000 and NT$90,000, with their driver’s license being suspended for one year; if such behavior by a car driver should cause an accident, his/her driver’s license shall be revoked: 1. … continuing to cross railroad tracks when the alarm already goes off, warning lights are already flashing, or the crossing gates are being lowered”). Disputed Provision Two provides: “Car drivers whose driver’s license have been revoked under…Article 54… shall be permanently prohibited from taking the driver’s license test and obtaining the driver’s license, with the exemption of drivers as specified in Article 67-1.” Disputed Provisions One and Two restrict car drivers’ general freedom of action; if the drivers are professional drivers, the revocation of their driver’s licenses will simultaneously involve a restriction of the “subjective criteria” for people’s freedom to pursue a chosen occupation and thus will restrict their right to work. The fine imposed on drivers for violation of Disputed Provision One restricts the drivers’ property rights. Disputed Provision Three provides: “In any of the following events, car drivers shall be required to take road traffic safety lessons: … 4. Any offense detailed in Article 54.” The requirement of taking traffic safety lessons for violation of Disputed Provision One is a restriction on people’s general freedom of action.
When the Road Traffic Act was amended in 1975, Article 54, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 was introduced stipulating that: “In the event of any of the following, car drivers who drive into or across a railroad crossing shall be fined between NT$500 and NT$1,000: 1. … continuing to cross railroad tracks when the alarm goes off, warning lights are flashing, or the crossing gates are being lowered.” Its legislative intent was to “ensure the safety of the vehicles, passengers, and pedestrians that pass through the railroad crossing” (see Volume 64, 51st Legislative Yuan Session Minutes, Page 69 of the Legislative Yuan Gazette, for further reference). The provision was then amended and promulgated on May 30, 2012, which became Disputed Provision One, with its constituent elements remaining the same; only the fines thereunder were increased and ranged from NT$15,000 to NT$60,000. The reason for the amendment was to deter cars from forcibly crossing a railroad crossing so as to ensure the safety of several hundred thousand rail passengers who ride the train every day and to prevent enormous property loss or damage that would severely impact on traffic order (see Volume 101, 28th Legislative Yuan Session Minutes, Page 111 of the Legislative Yuan Gazette, for further reference). A train can carry up to thousands of passengers. If an accident occurs at the railroad crossing, not only would the car that forcibly crossed the railroad crossing suffer damages and death, it may also cause the train to derail and numerous passengers may thus be injured or killed. Thus, Disputed Provisions One, Two, and Three were enacted for the purposes of deterring car drivers from forcibly crossing the railroad crossing in order to maintain traffic safety and protect the right to life, the right to protection from bodily harm, and right to property of an unspecified large number of people. Such purposes belong to substantial public interests and are thus constitutional.
As for the restrictions on the right to work imposed by Disputed Provisions One and Two, Disputed Provision Two does not distinguish as to the violators’ severity of transgression and the corresponding consequences, but simply stipulates that all violators be permanently prohibited from taking the driver’s license test. There are concerns as to whether it is too stringent (see the J.Y. Interpretation No. 531 for further reference). However, Article 67-1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that, if the car drivers who are permanently prohibited from taking the driver’s license test under Disputed Provisions One or Two meet certain requirements, then they may re-apply for the driver’s license and re-take the driver’s license test 6, 8, 10, or 12 years after the punishment is imposed in a manner consistent with the severity of loss or damage they caused, thereby establishing a rule to relax the restriction of “being permanently prohibited from taking the driver’s license test” and giving the drivers an opportunity to re-take the driver’s license test and obtain the driver’s license. The restriction is thus no longer permanent, and the means of such restriction are materially related to the achievement of purposes and hence neither against the principle of proportionality nor against the intent to protect the right to work as provided by the Constitution. Furthermore, regarding the restrictions on property rights in Disputed Provision One and the restrictions on the general freedom of action in Disputed Provisions One, Two, and Three, their means are reasonably related to the achievement of purposes and are neither against the principle of proportionality nor against the intents to protect the right to property and the general freedom of action in the Constitution.
For pedestrians as well as drivers of various types of vehicles and their passengers who pass through railroad crossings, and for numerous rail passengers, traffic safety at railroad crossings concerns the safety of their lives, bodies, and property. Traffic accidents taking place at railroad crossings are likely to cause tremendous loss or damage to people’s lives, bodies, and property. Therefore, the government has a constitutional obligation to establish comprehensive rules as well as protective and safeguard mechanisms for traffic through railroad crossings, so as to ensure the safety of people’s lives, bodies, and property. Article 14 of the Railway Act provides: “(Paragraph 1) Where railways and roadways intersect, three-dimensional crossings or railway-crossings shall be installed according to the volume of traffic. (Paragraph 2) The measures of planning, design, installation, modification, discontinuance, installation standards, expense allocation and other relevant matters of aforementioned three-dimensional crossings’ or railway-crossings’ protective facilities shall be provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (“MOTC”).” The “Installation Standards and Expense Allocation Regulations for Three-Dimensional Crossings’ and Railway Crossings’ Protective Facilities” as provided by the MOTC (hereinafter referred to as the “Installation Regulations”) and the “Operational Procedures for Maintenance and Inspection of Railway Signaling Equipment” as compiled and published by the Construction Department and Electrical Engineering Department of Taiwan Railways Administration, MOTC in January 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “Operational Procedures”) both stipulate the periods of time for the operation of alarms, flashing lights, and crossing gates at the railroad crossing. However, regarding the circumstances where two or more trains pass each other at the railroad crossing in opposite directions or pass the railroad crossing one after another in the same direction, the aforementioned Installation Regulations and Operational Procedures do not provide reasonable minimum interval for safety between the end of an alert after the passage of one train and the activation of the alert prior to the arrival of another train. This has led to the situation that, within 1 second after the end of the alert and the rising of the crossing gates after the passage of one train, the alert is suddenly activated again (see the Taoyuan District Court Administrative Litigation Judgment 106-Chiao-374 (2017) for further reference); or as determined by the Final Judgment for this case, after the end of the alert and the rising of the crossing gates after the passage of one train, there are only 4 seconds left before the alert is activated again prior to the arrival of another train. Therefore, when starting to drive forward after the alert has ended and the crossing gates start rising, vehicle drivers should continue to pay attention to the operation of the alarm and warning lights in order to stop immediately the moment the alarm goes off and the warning lights flash again (see Article 104 of the Road Traffic Safety Regulations for further reference). Nevertheless, as humans cannot react as precisely as machines, drivers of large vehicles will need reasonable time to react when driving forward or stopping the vehicle suddenly. When vehicle drivers see the barriers rise, they may mistakenly believe that no train will pass the railroad crossing in the immediate period and thus enter the railroad crossing. Regarding the circumstances where two or more trains pass each other at the railroad crossing in opposite directions or pass the railroad crossing one after another in the same direction, both the Installation Regulations and the Operational Procedures do not provide for reasonable minimum interval for safety between the two periods of time when passage through the railroad crossing is restricted. As such, in the event that the alert is activated again only within an extremely short interval after the end of the pervious alert, vehicle drivers are likely to inadvertently enter the railroad crossing and cause a traffic accident, and thus be punished under Disputed Provisions One and Two. The Court hereby specifies that relevant authorities shall immediately review and rectify such circumstances in accordance with the intent of this J.Y. Interpretation and use modern technology to put in place information and telecommunications equipment as well as other control mechanisms as may be required (for example, by introducing the “alert extension” function to the railroad crossing alert system, so that if one train just passed through the railroad crossing and the original alert is about to end, and another train will reach the point where a new alert will be activated within specified seconds, then the original alert will be extended and will not end, so as to prevent any traffic accident due to the interval between the two periods of time of traffic restriction being too short).
Additionally, the Petitioner also argued that Article 51, Subparagraphs 5 and 10 and Article 53 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China are in conflict with the Constitution. Since these provisions were not applied in the rendering of the Final Judgment, the Petitioner may not refer these provisions as objects of this J.Y. Interpretation. It is hereby declared that the said parts of the petition do not satisfy the requirements as specified by Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act and shall not be granted review according to Paragraph 3 of the same Article.
______________________
*Translated by Y. Y. CHIN