Case News
The TCC delivers its Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-6 (2026)
The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) delivered Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-6 (2026), the “Case on the Statute of Limitations for Sexual Offenses against Minors,” on August 14, 2026.
Facts, Issues, and Procedure of the Case
Under Article 80, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code (as amended on January 1, 1935; the same version applies throughout), the statute of limitations is twenty years for offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a minimum term of ten years, and ten years for offenses punishable by imprisonment for a minimum term of three years but less than ten years. Under Paragraph 2 of the same article, the periods specified above shall commence from the day on which the offense is committed, or from the last day on which the offense is completed if the offense is of a continuing nature. The question brought to the TCC was whether this statutory framework governing the limitation period, when applied to sexual offenses against minors, was constitutional.
This constitutional case involved thirteen criminal cases and a total of eleven petitioners, all of whom were persons who had been subjected to sexual assault or sexual exploitation when they were under the age of eighteen. After reaching adulthood, the petitioners brought their cases to the respective District Prosecutors Offices but the prosecutors declined to prosecute because the applicable limitation periods had expired. Their subsequent applications to the High Prosecutors Offices for reconsideration and motions requesting the District Courts to order the cases to proceed to trial or permitting private prosecutions were also dismissed for the same reason. The petitioners filed for constitutional review and constitutional complaints between 2023 and 2026, arguing that the provisions are unconstitutional because they determined the applicable limitation periods solely by reference to the severity of the prescribed penalties, without providing sufficient protection for minors who were victims of sexual offenses. Their petitions were later consolidated. A non-public briefing was held on March 2, 2026, at which relevant parties and experts presented their opinions.
Although the legislature amended Article 80, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code on July 7, 2026, providing that the period between the date of the offense and the date on which the victim reaches the age of twenty shall be excluded when calculating the limitation period, the TCC nevertheless proceeded to decide merits of this case because of its constitutional significance.
Following TCC Judgment 114-Hsien-Pan-1 (2025), Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-6 (2026) was rendered by a bench of five Justices (excluding the three Justices who declined to participate in the deliberations). Justice Tsai-Chen TSAI authored the Judgment and also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Tai-Lang LU filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Chung-Wu CHEN.
Decision of the Court
The TCC declared Article 80, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 1 and 2, as well as Article 80, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter “the disputed provisions”) unconstitutional in part.
In its reasoning, the TCC pointed out that the disputed provisions, in determining the applicable limitation periods for sexual offenses in the petitioners’ cases (e.g., rape, indecent assault, sexual intercourse by abuse of authority, indecent assault by taking advantage of incapacitation, filming sexual images or videos of a minor), failed to take into account the difficulties minor victims may face in promptly reporting sexual offenses committed against them. The TCC concluded that, to the extent that the phenomenon of delayed disclosure by minors who are victims of sexual offenses is overlooked, the disputed provisions violate their right to institute legal proceedings enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. Within this scope, the disputed provisions shall cease to be effective from the date of announcement of this Judgment.
The final court rulings of the petitioners’ criminal cases were declared unconstitutional and quashed, and the cases were remanded to the respective competent courts.
Notes:
- The full text of the TCC Judgment, together with the opinions of Justices, is available in Traditional Chinese on the TCC website. An English summary of this Judgment will be available later on the TCC English website.
- TCC Case News is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court (Judicial Yuan) for informational purposes only and does not constitute part of the Judgment.
- In the event of any discrepancy between the Traditional Chinese and English versions, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.