The procedural regulation in Article 74 of the Administrative Procedure Act, providing that service by deposit takes effect from the date of deposit in accordance with the law, is proper and does not violate the constitutional requirement of due process of law.

        The petitioner, Judge of the Administrative Litigation Division of the Taoyuan District Court in Taiwan (hereinafter Petitioner One), to adjudicate the labor insurance dispute 102-Chien-21 (2013) of the same court; Petitioner, Judge of the Administrative Litigation Division of the Taoyuan District Court in Taiwan (hereinafter Petitioner Two), to adjudicate the air pollution control dispute 101-Chien-60 (2012), and the profit-seeking enterprise income tax case 103-Chien-137 (2014) of the same court; Petitioner, Judge of the Administrative Litigation Division of the Shilin District Court in Taiwan (hereinafter Petitioner Three), to adjudicate the occupational safety and health case 104- Chien-33 (2015), and the traffic adjudication case 105-Jiao-183 (2016) of the same court, have applied to this Court for interpretation of the Constitution.  Petitioners One to Three contended that Article 74 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which should be applied during adjudication (hereinafter the disputed provision), does not specify that service by deposit takes effect only after a certain period (e.g., 10 days) from the date of deposit and thus is in violation of the constitutional due process of law and against Article 16 of the Constitution. As a result, they have decided to suspend the proceedings and applied to this Court to interpretation of the Constitution. 

        Petitioner Wen-Yu Tzeng (hereinafter Petitioner Four), due to a business tax case, was dissatisfied with the decision delivered by the National Taxation Bureau of the Northern Area, Ministry of Finance, and thus filed an administrative appeal. The Bureau then determined that the reviewed decision document was deposited at the postal office of the delivery location on January 14, 2015, and consequently was served to Petitioner Four on the same day. The 30-day appeal period was calculated from January 15, 2015, and expired on February 13, 2015. Petitioner Four filed the appeal late, on February 25, 2015, exceeding the appeal period, and the appeal was therefore not accepted.Petitioner Four then filed an administrative litigation, which was dismissed by the Taipei High Administrative Court Order Case 104-Su-946 (2015), on the ground of an unlawful litigation. Upon appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court Order 104-Tsai- 1912 (2015) dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and as a result made the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling the final and binding decision in this case.  Petitioner Four contended that the disputed provision applied in the final and binding decision did not specify that deposit service becomes effective 10 days after the date of deposit, which violates Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, Petitioner Four petitioned this Court to interpret the Constitution.

        Considering the constitutional interpretation cases submitted by the judges, the court has opted to suspend the litigation procedures. The judges, having formed an objective and concrete belief that the law in question is unconstitutional and provided detailed reasons, have petitioned this Court for a constitutional interpretation. After thorough review, this Court has been determined that these cases fulfill the criteria for a judge-initiated petition for constitutional interpretation, as specified in J.Y. Interpretations No. 371, 572, and 590. Consequently, these cases are deemed acceptable. Additionally, the petitions submitted by citizens have been carefully reviewed and found to comply with the requirements set forth in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act. As such, these petitions are also accepted for consideration.

        As the petitions from the judges and citizens all involve the question of whether the disputed provisions are unconstitutional and have the commonalities, this Court hereby consolidate the cases for review, and the reason is provided accordingly:

        The scope of the people’s freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution is overarching. Based on the consideration of protecting people’s freedoms and rights, the substantive content of legal provisions must not be unconstitutional. As for the procedures for implementing the substantive content and providing timely remedies in case of interference with fundamental rights, except for those stipulated in Article 8 of the Constitution in respect of personal liberty, the rest of the procedural provisions should be in line with due process of law in a state governed by the rule of law, in order to be consistent with the constitutional purpose of protecting the people's freedoms and rights. The other procedural norms should still conform to due process of law in a state governed by the rule of law. (refer to Interpretation No. 488 of this Court). With respect to whether the procedural norms formulated by the state organs are proper and not contrary to the requirements of the constitutional due process of law, apart from considering whether there is any special provision in the Constitution, it should still be determined according to the field of the matter, the nature of the fundamental rights involved, the intensity and scope of the restrictions, the public interest pursued, the functional suitability of the decision-making body, the availability of alternative procedures, and the costs of various possible procedures. These factors should be comprehensively considered (refer to J.Y. Interpretations No. 689, 709, and 739 of this Court). 

        The deposit service of administrative documents involves that the statutory service agency delivering documents that should be served on the parties or other related persons in accordance with the relevant deposit service regulations. If the documents cannot be delivered to the person, it will make him/her aware of the contents of the documents or put him/her in the position of being aware of the documents in some other way, so as to make the administrative act take effect in accordance with the law, and to facilitate the person to be served to decide whether or not it is a necessary act to safeguard his/her rights and interests. (refer to J.Y. Interpretation No. 667 of this Court). Therefore, if the procedural regulations for the delivery service of administrative documents are promulgated upon comprehensive consideration of the factors indicated previously, they are in compliance with the constitutional due process of law.

        The Administrative Procedure Act stipulates the procedures that administrative agencies must follow when conducting administrative actions. Considering the legislative purpose of the Act, it is served to ensure the principle of administration according to law, to protect the rights and interests of the people, to improve administrative efficiency, and to increase public trust in administration (refer to Article 1 of the Administrative Procedure Act).

        Regarding the protection of people’s rights and interests, administrative actions by agencies vary case-by-case and have different legal effects (refer to Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the same Act). There are provisions that stipulate people to file administrative litigation, such as administrative dispositions (refer to Articles 1 and following of the Administrative Appeal Act, Article 4 and following of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 109 of the Administrative Procedure Act). There are also provisions that stipulate the notification and submission of information that are not directly related to litigation, such as notification of participation in the procedure (refer to Article 23 of the Administrative Procedure Law), notification of participation in the hearing (refer to Articles 55 and 62 of the same Law), notification of stating opinions (refer to Articles 39, 102 and 104 of the same Law). For varied types of administrative actions where it is necessary to inform people through documents, the relevant service regulations must be followed to ensure that people are being informed of the content of the administrative documents or are in a position to be informed. This protects their right to legal notice and helps them decide whether to take necessary actions. The service of administrative documents can trigger the start of periods for filing litigation for remedies, which pertains to the procedural fundamental rights protected under Article 16 of the Constitution (refer to J.Y. Interpretations No. 610, 663, and 667 of this Court). Alternatively, it may not directly involve litigation for remedies but can still involve other freedoms or rights protected by the Constitution. Accordingly, the procedural regulations for the service of administrative documents must comply with the constitutional due process of law.

        With regards to the improvement of administrative efficiency, administrative authority is distinguished by its proactive, positive, dynamic, and comprehensive characteristics. Such actions regulated by the Administrative Procedure Act encompass not only those initiated by administrative agencies themselves (ex officio), but also those undertaken in response to applications from individuals (refer to Articles 34 and 35 of the Administrative Procedure Act). These actions might be those that impose burden on the people and those that have a beneficial effect (refer to Articles 117 and 121 of the same law). Meanwhile, they may be administrative sanctions in nature, but there are also administrative contracts or other types of administrative actions (refer to Articles 100, 139, and 167 of the same law, etc.), to name a few.Hence, administrative acts are characterized by their comprehensive and diversified nature, and the circumstances involved in serving administrative instruments to the public are highly complex and multifaceted. The service of these instruments is crucial not only for initiating the period for seeking relief or ensuring the smooth conduct of administrative procedures, but also for determining the time when an administrative action becomes legally effective. This includes the effectiveness of administrative sanctions and the interruption of the statute of limitations for the right of petition in public law, which are strictly correlated to enhancing administrative efficiency and safeguarding the public interest. Particularly, the service of administrative documents is part of the procedures that should be followed within the related systems. When formulating procedural regulations for the service of administrative documents, relevant agencies must consider the professional needs for enhancing administrative efficiency. As long as these regulations comply with the constitutional requirement of due process, agencies should be entitled to some discretion to decide. This falls within the scope of legislative discretion, and appropriate respect should be granted when evaluating the suitability of these procedural regulations.

        The provision at issue stipulates: (paragraph 1) If service cannot be carried out according to the provisions of the preceding two articles, the document may be deposited with the local self-governing or police authority at the service location. Two copies of the notice of service shall be made: one to be posted on the front door of the recipient’s residence, office, place of business, or place of employment, and the other to be delivered to a neighbor for forwarding or placed in a mailbox or other appropriate location at the service address. (paragraph 2) In such cases when the postal authority handles the service, the document may be deposited at the postal authority of the service location. (paragraph 3) The depository is required to keep the document for three months from the date of receipt. From this, it can be understood that deposit service is an auxiliary or alternative method used when general service, substituted service, or service by attachment (refer to in Articles 72 and 73 of the same law) cannot be completed.Regardless of whether it is general service, supplementary service, or leaving-at-the-door service, the effectiveness of service depends on the recipient being in a position to be informed of the document. Deposit service, as an auxiliary and alternative method to the aforementioned service methods, ensures that the recipient is likewise in a position to be informed. This process involves posting and forwarding or placing the service notice, then depositing the document with the local self-governing as well as police authority, or postal agency at the service location. This approach enables individuals to expediently collect the document nearby at any time, thereby fulfilling the purpose of service. The regulation stipulating that the document must be kept for three months at the designated authority is also sufficient to ensure the safety and confidentiality of the document, and to provide the recipient ample opportunity to collect it. Regarding administrative procedures initiated by people’s applications, people provide the service location to the administrative agency, and can foresee the service of administrative documents. If the administrative procedure is initiated by administrative agencies themselves (ex officio), the service location of administrative documents can also be confirmed when giving the people an opportunity to present their opinions (refer to Article 39, Paragraph 1 and Article 102 of the same Act), allowing people to foresee the service of administrative documents. Even if there is no legal requirement to provide an opportunity to present opinions in advance (refer to Article 103 of the same Act), the administrative agency can still determine the residence, office, place of business, or place of employment of the recipient based on the registered information such as household registration, office, place of business, or place of employment (refer to Articles 4 and 21 of the Household Registration Act, Articles 9, 14, and 15 of the Business Registration Act, Article 393 of the Company Act, and Article 4 of Regulations Governing Company Registration), and serve the documents accordingly.Given that the service locations mentioned are places where the recipient conducts daily activities, deposit service ensures that the recipient is likely to be informed by posting and forwarding or placing the service notice. Considering that service by deposit is an auxiliary and alternative means to general service, supplementary service or leaving-at-the-door service, the diversity of administrative acts, the protection of the people’s right to legal notice, as well as the public interest in administrative efficiency, it is recognized that the procedure and manner of service by deposit under the disputed provisions are still strict and appropriate. The procedural norms are still proper and do not violate the requirements of the constitutional due process of law, so it cannot be said that the procedural norms of service by deposit are improper simply because the disputed provision does not specify that service will not be effected until a certain period of time has elapsed from the date of deposit.

        The procedures and methods for deposit service stipulated in the disputed provision, as mentioned above, comply with the constitutional due process of law. However, to ensure that people’s fundamental rights receive more appropriate and effective protection, relevant authorities may also refer to Article 138, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 73, Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act. They may design distinct regulations regarding the effective date of deposit service or the commencement of the relief period.

______________________

* Translated by Hsin-Hsuan Lin