Case News
The TCC delivers its Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-1 (2026)
The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) delivered its judgment on the “Case on the Defense Attorney’s Standing to File Quasi-Interlocutory Appeal against the Defendant’s Detention Ruling” (TCC Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-1) on January 2, 2026.
Facts, Issues, and Procedure of the Case
Article 416, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CoCP) stipulates: “A subject of a disposition, who objects to the following disposition made by a presiding judge, commissioned judge, assigned judge, (…), may petition the concerned court to withdraw or change the disposition. (…) 1.A disposition regarding detention, (….)” Such a petition for change or withdrawal is called “quasi-interlocutory appeal” in academic terms, because rules for interlocutory appeal apply mutatis mutandis to its legal effects, periods, and rulings under Article 416, Paragraph 4 of the CoCP. Compared to typical interlocutory appeals against court-ordered dispositions, quasi-interlocutory appeals are filed against judge-ordered dispositions. Question was raised as to whether the defendant’s attorney has standing to file a quasi-interlocutory appeal against the defendant’s detention disposition, as the counsel is not literally the “subject of disposition” in Article 416, Paragraph 1 of the CoCP.
The petitioner of this case was charged with violating the Firearms, Ammunition, and Knives Control Act and was subject to a detention disposition ordered by his case’s commissioned judge from the Pingtung District Court after questioning. The petitioner’s attorney filed a quasi-interlocutory appeal but a collegial panel of the district court overruled it finally. The collegial panel deemed that under Article 416, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the CoCP (hereinafter the “challenged provision”), the standing to file a quasi-interlocutory appeal is limited to the “subject of disposition,” i.e., the defendant, thus excluding the defendant’s counsel. The petitioner challenged the provision’s constitutionality and filed a constitutional complaint against the panel’s ruling, arguing that the provision violated his rights to individual liberty and to institute legal proceedings. The petitioner cited TCC Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-3 (2022) as a reference, which held that the defendant’s attorney may apply Article 346 of the CoCP mutatis mutandis and file interlocutory appeals against court-ordered detention dispositions.
Three justices refused to participate in the deliberation and decision of this case. The TCC cited the decision in Judgment 114-Hsien-Pan-1 (2025) and discounted them from the number of incumbent justices to meet the quorum for deliberation and decision.
Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-1 (2026) was announced on January 2, 2026. Justice Tai-Lang LU authored this Judgment. Justice Tsai-Chen TSAI filed a concurring opinion.
Decision of the Court
The TCC upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provision, ruling that it did not violate the rights to individual liberty and to institute legal proceedings so long as the defendant’s attorney can file quasi-interlocutory appeals against detention dispositions on the defendant’s behalf when the defendant does not expressly object to it.
In its reasoning, the TCC noted that the effects of detentions are the same whether issued by the court or an individual judge. There is no reason for criminal procedure to bar an attorney from appealing against their client’s detention simply because it is ordered by a judge instead of being ordered in the name of the court. The TCC held that Article 419 of the CoCP, a mutatis mutandis provision for counsels to enjoy the same standing in interlocutory appeals as in appeals of Part I, Chapter III of the CoCP, shall also apply to quasi-interlocutory appeals. Consequently, the attorney’s standing to file appeals for his or her client under Article 346 of the CoCP shall apply mutatis mutandis to quasi-interlocutory appeals under the challenged provision.
The TCC declared the challenged ruling unconstitutional. The ruling was quashed, with its matters remanded to the Pingtung District Court.
Notes:
- The full texts of the TCC Judgment as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions of individual Justices are available on the TCC website in 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 constitute as a part of the decision.
- In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.