Case News
The TCC delivers its Judgment 112-Hsien-Pan-13 (2023)
TAIPEI, October 19, 2023. The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) delivered its Judgment of the "Case on the Penalty for Selling Category One Narcotics" on August 11, 2023.
Principal Facts, Issues, and Procedure of the Case
This case concerns the severity of penalty for selling Category One narcotics. Article 4, Paragraph 1, First Sentence of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act stipulates that "[o]ffenders of manufacturing, transporting, or selling Category one narcotics are subject to a death sentence or life imprisonment." Said provision's severity was once addressed in J.Y. Interpretation No.476 in 1999, in which the TCC ruled proportionate and constitutional.
Petitioners I to III are judges from Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court, Taiwan High Court, and Taiwan Changhua District Court, who were hearing Category One narcotics cases (heroin). Petitioners IV to VIII are defendants of Category One narcotics cases. They are either first-time offenders, subordinates of the primary offender, or involved in relatively petty drug dealing (in terms of the amount of drugs or the monetary amount concerned).
The petitioners argued that Article 4, Paragraph 1, First Sentence of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act (hereinafter "the disputed provision") prescribes the death penalty or life imprisonment for dealing Category One narcotics, without distinguishing the severity and mitigating factors of individual cases. The petitioners argued that the disputed provision violates the principle of punishment fitting the crime and J.Y Interpretation No. 476 should be revised. The petitioners filed for constitutional reviews respectively, and their cases were consolidated.
Judgment 112-Hsien-Pan-13 (2023) was announced on August 11, 2023. Justice Jui-Ming HUANG wrote this Judgment. Justice Horng-Shya HUANG (joined by Justice Ming-Cheng TSAI) filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jiun-Yi LIN (joined by Justice Chen-Huan WU, Justice Chong-Wen CHANG, and Justice Tzung-Jen TSAI) filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sheng-Lin JAN, Justice Hui-Chin YANG, and Justice Tzung-Jen TSAI (joined by Justice Chen-Huan WU, Justice Jiun-Yi LIN, and Justice Chong-Wen CHANG) each filed an opinion dissenting in part. Justice Jau-Yuan HWANG filed a dissenting opinion.
Decision of the Court
The TCC declared the disputed provision partly unconstitutional and altered its decision in J.Y. Interpretation No. 476. In its holding, the TCC pointed out that as the punishment in the disputed provision is either a death sentence or life imprisonment, the defendants are still subjected to disproportionately severe punishment even after applying Article 59 of the Criminal Code for mitigating factors (e.g. first-time offense, petty drug dealers…etc.) in their respective cases. In this respect, the disputed provision restricts the defendant's personal freedom in a way that violates the principle of punishment fitting the crime and the principle of proportionality.
The TCC gave the competent authority a two-year grace period to amend the disputed provision as appropriate. The competent authority is advised to review the statutory penalty of the disputed provision and add options other than life imprisonment and the death penalty. Before the amendment, courts hearing Category One narcotics cases with abovementioned mitigating factors, besides applying Article 59 of the Criminal Code, may choose to reduce up to half of the sentences citing this Judgment.
Notes:
- Full texts of the Judgment and Opinions are available on the TCC website here (Traditional Chinese). An English summary of this Judgment will be available later on the TCC English website.
- The TCC's Case News is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court (Judicial Yuan) for information only and does not bind the Court.
- In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.