The Petitioner filed a complaint of offense against morality against three juveniles because they delinquently assaulted the Petitioner’s minor daughter. The police transferred the case to the competent juvenile court. Taipei District Court, Juvenile Division, delivered a ruling not to submit a matter to hearing by 104-Shao-Diao-120 (2015) and a ruling of protective measure by 104-Shao-Hu-104 (2015). The Petitioner disagreed with the rulings and filed interlocutory appeals. Because those interlocutory appeals were considered to be groundless, they were dismissed by the rulings 104-Shao-Kang-105 (2015) and 104-Shao-Kang-87 (2015) (hereinafter Final Rulings). The Petitioner argued that Article 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter the Dispute Provision) does not give victims and their statutory agents the opportunity to appear and express opinions, unconstitutionally intruding upon people’s procedural rights, rights to judicial remedy, and due process of law, and requested an interpretation. The request was in line with the requirements set forth in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Act Governing the Decisions of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan, hereby being accepted, and the interpretation has been made for the following reasons:
Article 16 of the Constitution guaranteeing the people’s right to judicial remedy means that a person shall have the right to litigate in court for legal remedies when his personal right is infringed (in reference to J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 653, 752m and 755 of this Court), and courts shall fairly proceed with trials in accordance with the Due Process of Law of the Constitution (in reference to J.Y. Interpretation Nos. 737 and 755 of this Court). Criminal victims (including victims in juvenile cases) who have certain positions or rights in legal actions are interested people and should have rights to participate based on the constitutional requirement of Due Process of Law even though they are not parties in the procedure. The right of criminal victims (including victims in juvenile cases) to appear and express opinions is a fundamental concept guaranteed by the victim’s right to participate under due process of law, which should be complied with by courts, and which is guaranteed by the Constitution. In addition, in order to realize the concrete content of the right to judicial remedy and due process of law, legislators should enact relevant laws in accordance with the purpose and nature of different legal proceedings (in reference to J.Y. Interpretation Nos. 512, 574 and 752 of this Court). The relevant procedural provisions that do not give criminal victims (including victims in juvenile cases) the opportunities to appear and express opinions are in violation of the constitutional principle of the victims' rights to participate. Victims should have the rights to appear and express opinions to the extent of the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act even though the procedure of juvenile cases is distinct from criminal procedure.
The State, according to the constitutional purpose of protecting children and youths (in reference to J.Y. Interpretation No. 664 of this Court), bears a special duty for the physical and mental health and the sound development of personality (in reference to Article 156 of the Constitution), and should take necessary measures based on the best interests of children and youths, families' protection for children, and the development of the society and economy. Therefore, in order to protect children and youths who are immature, legislators enacted the Juvenile Justice Act to regulate matters with respect to juveniles’ crimes and delinquency, and the legislative purpose is to promote juveniles’ self-development, provide for an environment of growth, and rectify their character. The proceedings governing juvenile protection cases are for the protection and rectification of delinquent juveniles.
However, juvenile protection cases related to delinquent juveniles may involve victims who are assaulted or hurt by those juveniles and are also juveniles. In juvenile protection proceedings, victims’ appearances and expression of opinions about the circumstances of victimization, the adjustment of juveniles’ future environment, and the rectification of character not only aids courts in truth-finding but also helps courts to consider relative factors in deciding proper protection measures that promote the future sound development of the juveniles. When the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted (promulgated on January 31, 1962), the act guaranteed victims certain procedural positions and rights, such as that the juvenile court may, with the consent of the victim, upon finding the delinquency inconsequential, deliver a ruling not to submit a matter to hearing; the juvenile court shall serve an original copy of its ruling to the victim, and the victim may file an interlocutory appeal against a ruling not to submit a matter to hearing or not to apply protective measures made by the juvenile court (in reference to Article 29, Paragraph 2, Article 48, and Article 62 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1962). In addition to the fact that the juvenile court shall serve an original copy of its ruling to the victim (in reference to Article 48 of the Juvenile Justice Act), the current Juvenile Justice Act also provides that the victim or his/her statutory agent in a juvenile case may file an interlocutory appeal against a ruling not to submit a matter to hearing, a ruling not to submit a matter to hearing but to order transferred guidance, give reprimand, or strict discipline, a ruling not to apply protective measures, or a ruling ordering protective measures made by the juvenile court, or may apply for a trial de novo where a ruling not to apply protective measures made by the juvenile court is finalized (in reference to Article 64-2 of the Juvenile Justice Act); moreover, before the juvenile court, upon finding the delinquency inconsequential, may deliver a ruling not to submit a matter to hearing and order transitional education, strict discipline, or give a reprimand, with the consent of the victim, the court may transfer the juvenile to an appropriate organization, institute, group, or individual for restoration or order the juvenile to apologize or write a repentance letter (in reference to Article 29, Paragraph 3, Article 41, Paragraph 2, and Article 42, Paragraph 4 of the Juvenile Justice Act). It follows that the Juvenile Justice Act, when it was enacted, provides victims with independent procedural positions and rights during the juvenile protection proceedings. The victims, thus, should have the right to participate in accordance with the constitutional requirement of Due Process of Law. When enacting provisions concerning juvenile protection cases, in addition to the protection of delinquent minors, legislators should be committed to protect victims’ rights to participate which at least includes the opportunities to appear and express opinions unless justifiable excuses exist, this being in line with the principle of proportionality.
The Disputed Provision, which is Article 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act, provides that: “On the hearing date, when the juvenile is being interrogated, the statutory agent, a person who currently protects the juvenile, and the assistant shall be given opportunities to make statements.” is the procedural provision should be followed by the juvenile court when hearing juvenile protection cases. The legislative purpose, which is proper and necessary, is to prevent juveniles from making inappropriate statements during interrogation due to their immature mentality and expression, and, in order to help the juvenile court to promote juveniles’ sound development, let statutory agents, the persons who currently protect the juvenile, or assistants express relevant opinions. The Disputed Provision does not include victims and their statutory agents; the juvenile court may summon victims to appear and express opinions to ask for consent according to other provisions, but this is not a normal right for victims in juvenile protection proceedings. Overall, the Disputed Provision and other provisions concerning juvenile protection proceedings do not grant victims and their statutory agents the rights to appear and express opinions during juvenile protection proceedings; therefore, victims and their statutory agents may not be able to provide input on the circumstances of victimization, the adjustment of delinquent juvenile’s future environment and the necessity of character-rectification, and they may not provide the juvenile courts with references about the juvenile’s action from the victim’s perspective and help those courts adopt proper protective measures from the victim’s point of view. To this extent, the Disputed Provision is inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of due process of law and in violation of victims’ rights to participate, which are guaranteed by the Constitution. The authorities concerned shall revise the Juvenile Justice Act as appropriate in accordance with the ruling of this interpretation and the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, which is to ensure the sound self-development of juveniles. Before the act is revised, the juvenile court shall summon victims and their agents and provide them with the opportunities to express opinions. It is certain that the juvenile court shall make proper decisions about how victims or their statutory agents express opinions in accordance with the legislative purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, which is to ensure the sound self-development of juveniles.
The petitioner also asserted that Article 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act is unconstitutional, but that provision is not eligible for constitutional review because it was not applied by the Final Rulings. In accordance with Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Act Governing the Decisions of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan, we dismiss this assertion.
______________________
*Translated by Rong-Geng Li