Case News
The TCC Delivers Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-7 (2026)
The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) delivered Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-7 (2026), the “Case of Prior Restraint on Commercial Speech Regarding Immigration Services,” on October 8, 2026.
Facts, Issues, and Procedure of the Case
Under Article 56, Paragraph 4 of the Immigration Act (hereinafter “disputed Provision I”), immigration service organizations (which are immigration service companies approved by the National Immigration Agency) are required to submit advertisements for certain services to designated organizations for review and approval before disseminating, broadcasting, or publishing them. Violators are subject to a fine ranging from NT$30,000 to NT$150,000, and may be ordered to cease operations if they failed to make the required improvements within a specified period under Article 79, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Immigration Act (hereinafter “disputed Provision II”). The constitutional question before the TCC was whether this prior restraint on advertising for immigration services was consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
There were two petitioners in this case. Petitioner No. 1 was a judge of the Taipei High Administrative Court who filed a petition for constitutional review in connection with a pending case. The case involved an immigration service company that failed to obtain prior approval for its advertisement as required by Provision I and was consequently fined NT$30,000 under disputed Provision II. Petitioner No. 2 is an immigration service company that was fined NT$ 30,000 for the same violation and had exhausted all available legal remedies before petitioning for constitutional review. Petitioner No. 2 also filed a constitutional complaint against the final court decision of its case.
Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-7 (2026) was rendered by a bench of five Justices (excluding the three Justices who declined to participate in the deliberations). Justice Po-Hsiang YU authored the Judgment. Justice Tai-Lang LU filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Chung-Wu CHEN.
Decision of the Court
The TCC declared the disputed provisions unconstitutional for imposing disproportionate restrictions on the immigration service companies’ freedom of speech. The TCC held that the disputed provisions shall cease to be effective from the date of announcement of this Judgment.
Because this case involved a prior restraint on commercial speech, the TCC applied strict scrutiny to assess the proportionality of the disputed provisions, consistent with the standard of review established in J.Y. Interpretation No. 744. The TCC noted that disputed Provision I was intended to protect consumers, but that this objective did not constitute a compelling public interest. The TCC observed that less restrictive means were available to achieve the legislative objective, particularly in light of other consumer protection measures provided under the Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Trade Act. The TCC held that there were no direct and absolutely necessary connections between the prior review requirement imposed by the disputed provisions and their legislative purposes. Accordingly, the TCC held that the disputed provisions violate the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution and infringed upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 11 of the Constitution.
The TCC also declared the final decision in Petitioner No.2’s case unconstitutional and quashed it. The case was remanded to the High Administrative Litigation Division of the Taipei High Administrative Court.
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.