Case News
The TCC delivers its Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-5 (2026)
The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) delivered its judgment on the “Case Concerning the Changes of the Statute of Limitations for Capital Offences” (TCC Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-5) on June 5, 2026.
Facts, Issues, and Procedure of the Case
Under Article 80, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Code (as promulgated January 1, 1935), the statute of limitations for homicide, an offence punishable by death, was twenty years. In 2005, the provision was amended (with the amendment taking effect on July 1, 2006) to extend the statute of limitations for offences punishable by death to thirty years. However, Article 8-1 of the Enforcement Act of the Criminal Code provided that, where the statute of limitations had not expired before the 2005 amendment took effect, the more lenient provision would apply in accordance with the lex mitior principle. Afterwards, Article 80, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Code was amended again in 2019, by adding a proviso that the thirty-year statute of limitations does not apply to offences resulting in death (with the amendment taking effect on May 31, 2019). Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Act of the Criminal Code (hereinafter, the “disputed provision”) was amended accordingly to provide that, where the statute of limitations had not expired before the 2019 amendment took effect, the amended provision would apply. The constitutional question was whether the disputed provision violated the principles of lex retro non agit (non-retroactivity of law) and legitimate expectations (Vertrauensschutz).
The petitioner of this case was a joint offender in a homicide committed on December 7, 1998. The investigation was originally suspended under administrative closure by the prosecution on July 20, 1999 because the victim’s body was damaged to the extent that it could not be identified. The investigation was reopened after an informant came forward in 2020. The petitioner was indicted on August 17, 2020. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Taoyuan District Court; subsequently imprisonment for fourteen years and six months by the Taiwan High Court upon first appeal. Final appeals by the petitioner and the prosecution were dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2022. The petitioner filed for constitutional review of the disputed provision and a constitutional complaint against the case’s final court decision on June 9, 2022. The petitioner argued that, under the pre-2019 legal framework, the statute of limitations for her offence would have expired on July 17, 2019, less than two months after the 2019 amendment took effect and rendered the offence no longer subject to any statute of limitations. The petitioner contended that the disputed provision thus violated the principles of lex retro non agit and legal expectations under the Constitution.
Following TCC Judgment 114-Hsien-Pan-1 (2025), Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-5 (2026) was rendered by a bench of five Justices (excluding the three Justices who refused to participate). Justice Chung-Wu CHEN authored this Judgment. Justice Tsai-Chen TSAI filed a concurring opinion.
Decision of the Court
The TCC upheld the constitutionality of the disputed provision, in terms of its conformity with the principles of lex retro non agit and legal expectations.
In its reasoning, the TCC emphasized that the disputed provision did not create a genuine retroactive effect (echte Rückwirkung) because it was not applicable to the offences with expired statutes of limitations—the provision merely altered the limitation period for offences whose statutes of limitations had not yet expired when the amendment took effect.
The TCC further held that an offender's expectation of being free from prosecution and punishment upon the expiration of the statute of limitations is neither legitimate nor a reliance interest worthy of constitutional protection.
The petitioner’s constitutional complaint was therefore dismissed.
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.