Note: 

• This summary constitutes no part of the Judgment but is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court only for the readers' reference.
• Original paragraph numbers that the summarized texts correspond to are put into lenticular brackets after each paragraph. 
• In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.

Headnotes

    Article 35, Paragraph 2 of the Teachers' Act, as amended July 19, 2000 (hereinafter "Provision I"), is constitutional. It is in accordance with the doctrine of specific authorization regarding teachers' remuneration laid out by J.Y. Interpretation No. 707. 

    Article 12 of the Regulations of Contracted Substitute Teachers and Part-time Substitute Teachers in Elementary and Junior High Schools (as amended August 18, 2014, hereinafter "Provision II") and Ministry of Education Letters Tai-Chiao-Jen(Erh)-1050009778 of January 26, 2016 (hereinafter "Letter II"); Tai-Chiao-Jen(Erh)-1050044815 of April 1, 2016 (hereinafter "Letter III"); Tai-Chiao-Shou-Kuo-1050121014 of November 3, 2016 (hereinafter "Letter IV") are unconstitutional for violating the division of powers between the central and local governments under Article 108, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Constitution. 

    Letters II, III, and IV; Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Supplement Regulations on Contracted Substitute Teachers and Part-time Teachers of New Taipei City Municipal High Schools, Junior High and Elementary Schools (as amended November 23, 2011, hereinafter "Provision III"); and First Sentence of Note 3 of the Criteria for Assessing Salary for Public Schools and Preschools Substitute Teachers issued by the Education Department of the New Taipei City Government (hereinafter "Provision IV") are unconstitutional for violating the equality principle under Article 7 of the Constitution. 
 

Background Note

    Substitute teachers, either certified or uncertified, are relief teachers who stand in full-time for regular teachers when they are taking a leave or unable to perform their teaching duties. Substitute teachers are generally employed in high schools and lower-level schools (elementary and junior high), which can be further categorized into national schools, private schools, and county/municipal schools. However, the remuneration guidelines on whether to accrue seniority of past teaching jobs for substitute teachers vary in different regions, levels, or types of schools because they apply different regulations—some stipulated by the Ministry of Education, and some by local governments. Questions arise as to whether these distinctions and, additionally, the differential treatment between substitute and regular teachers violates the constitutional principle of equal protection. 

    The petitioner, Mr. Kai-Hsiang CHANG, was a certified substitute teacher contracted by New Taipei Municipal Zhonghe Senior High School in 2017. When assessing the petitioner's salary, the school referred to the "Criteria for Assessing Salary for Public Schools and Preschools Substitute Teachers" and discounted his seniority (also as a substitute teacher) in two other public high schools. After unsuccessful administrative appeals and exhaustion of ordinary judicial remedies, the petitioner filed for constitutional review.

    The petitioner argued that relevant regulations and letters violated Articles 7, 15, and 23 of the Constitution for creating different treatment in the remuneration of substitute teachers.^[1] The petitioner also argued that J.Y. Interpretation No.707, which ruled on the legal authorization of the remuneration regulations for public school (including elementary, junior high, and high schools) teachers, should be supplemented. 

    This case was argued on March 12, 2024. Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-7 (2024) was announced on August 9, 2024. Justice Jeong-Duen TSAI wrote this Judgment. Two opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part were filed. Three opinions dissenting in part were filed.
 

Summary of the Judgment 

Holding

1. Provision I prescribed that the rights and duties of substitute teachers be stipulated by Ministry of Education (hereinafter "MOE") issued regulations. It did not violate the doctrine of specific authorization. 
2. Provision II, Letters II, III, and IV issued by the MOE, which authorized the local governments to stipulate supplementary regulations regarding whether to accrue previous seniority when assessing the salary of certified substitute teachers in high schools and lower-lever schools. The New Taipei City Government and its Education Department amended and issued Provisions III and IV, which supplemented regulations on accruing seniority of previous teaching experiences of said teachers. Within said scope, the provisions and letters violated Article 108, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Constitution. 
3. Letters II, III, and IV issued by the MOE, as well as Provisions III and IV issued by the New Taipei City Government and its Education Department, prescribed that when assessing the salaries of newly-employed certified substitute teachers, the high schools and lower-level schools (may) not accrue their previous seniorities. Within said scope, the provisions and letters violated the equality principle under Article 7 of the Constitution.
4. The parts of Provisions and Letters declared unconstitutional in Parts 2 and 3 of the holding shall cease to be effective at the latest one year from the announcement of this Judgment.
5. The petitioner may, following this Judgment and relevant legal procedures, motion for a retrial with the court of jurisdiction for his original court case within thirty days starting on the next day of the date when this Judgment was served. 
6. The rest of the decision shall be dismissed.

Reasoning

1. Provision I conformed to the doctrine of specific authorization.

    Following the decision of J.Y. Interpretation No. 707, the remuneration of teachers, including the assessment (standards) of their salaries, is an important matter of public interest. Under said Interpretation, it is constitutional to stipulate such matters with regulations, provided they are specifically authorized by the law. Therefore, it is constitutional for the legislators to set up Provision I, authorizing the MOE to stipulate relevant regulations on supplementary or special matters regarding substitute teachers' rights and duties. The content and scope Provision I authorized were specific and clear, which conforms to the doctrine of specific authorization.【39】

2. Whether to accrue seniority of previous teaching experience for (newly employed) certified substitute teachers in junior high and elementary schools is a national matter and shall be stipulated with unified regulations issued by the central government 【40】

(1) Regulatory framework for the remuneration of certified substitute teachers: 

    Provision I authorized the MOE to stipulate regulations regarding the remuneration of certified non-regular teachers (including full-time and part-time substitute teachers) in junior high and elementary schools. With the authorization of Provision II, which was in a Provision I-authorized regulation, MOE further delegated the competence to lay out supplementary regulations to local education administrative agencies. Additionally, the MOE issued Letters II, III, and IV, clarifying that schools may accrue previous seniority when assessing the salary of a certified substitute teacher upon employment, just as the regular teachers. However, the local governments may decide depending on their fiscal conditions.【47-48】

(2)  The central government has legislative discretion over the educational personnel system, which also contains the remuneration standard (including the assessment of salary) of certified substitute teachers: 【54】

    Education is the cornerstone of national development. The quality of teaching could indirectly influence the people's right to education. Because teachers serve a crucial role in the education system, the design of teacher's personnel management, including training, certification, rights and duties, shall belong to the legislative discretion of the central government, as required by Article 108, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Constitution.【56】

    Substitute teachers in junior high and elementary school are full-time education personnel, just like the regular teachers. Under nationwide factors such as declining birth rate, delayed retirement of regular teachers caused by pension reform, and changes in curriculums that result in decreased teaching hours, local competent authorities have taken actions to reduce the number of regular teachers. Their measures led to the increasing employment of substitute teachers, who function the same as regular teachers. Many of the substitute teachers also have administrative responsibilities or serve the role of homeroom teachers. From this perspective, if one school denied accruing a certified substitute teacher's seniority of previous jobs (at another city or county) when assessing his or her salary, it would have the same effect as the other school enjoying said teacher's teaching experience elsewhere for free. If this issue is not managed with a unified national standard, it will cause unfair fiscal burdens between the local governments, as well as insufficient protection to the certified substitute teachers—which violates the protection of educational workers under Article 165 of the Constitution. Therefore, whether to accrue a certified substitute teacher's past seniority, is a matter regarding the education personnel and the educational system, which belongs to the legislative discretion of the central government. 【58-60】

(3)  Conclusion:

    The MOE did not issue specific regulations on the accrual of past seniority of certified substitute teachers. Instead, the MOE delegated the competence to stipulate such regulations to the local government with Provision II and Letters II, III, and IV. This allowed the local authorities to decide on their own depending on their fiscal conditions. This may lead to inconsistent practices and unequal distribution of teachers between regions. Such effects would further affect the people's right to education under Article 159 of the Constitution. The said provision and letters did not conform to the decision of J.Y. Interpretation No. 707. Within this scope, the said provision and letters violate the division of powers between the central and local governments under Article 108, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Constitution.  【59, 61】

3. Letters II, III, and IV, and Provisions III and IV (hereinafter together as "the Regulations in question"), stipulating that junior high and elementary schools may discount certified substitute teachers' seniority from previous teaching experiences when assessing their salary, have violated the equality principle under Article 7 of the Constitution. 

(1)  This case shall be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny: 

    The Regulations in question used the status of whether one acquires the position of a regular teacher as the criterion for differential treatment. Under such distinction, the local governments may decide if the schools should accrue the seniority of previous jobs (instead of being required mandatorily). Such a criterion is not an immutable characteristic. However, considering Article 165 of the Constitution prescribes that the State shall safeguard the livelihood of those who work in the fields of education, and shall, in accordance with the development of the national economy, increase their remuneration from time to time. Furthermore, as mentioned before, J.Y. Interpretation No. 707 deemed the remuneration of teachers an important matter involving public interest. The differential treatment imposed by the Regulations in question shall be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny. 【65】

(2)  The Regulations in question could violate the equality principle, and it was doubtful whether their purpose served an important public interest: 

    The differential treatment under the Regulations in question is based on the formative factor of whether one is a regular teacher. In doing so, the Regulations in question have neglected that in practice certified substitute teachers are manpower equivalent to regular teachers. Past teaching experiences of the certified substitute teachers are not properly evaluated under the Regulations in question, leading to unequal pay for equal work, which could violate the equality principle.【67】

    The MOE expressed in Letters II, III, and IV that local governments may decide, depending on their fiscal condition, whether the schools shall accrue certified substitute teachers' seniority of previous teaching experiences. However, the design of education is important for the generations to come—it concerns the overall literacy of the citizens and national development. Sufficient protection for the livelihood of certified substitute teachers would elevate the quality of teaching. Subsequently, it would also protect the people's right to education and advance education in rural areas. Whether to accrue seniority of the certified substitute teachers should not be based on fiscal burdens alone, but should also on important public interests such as protecting the right to education and advancing the education in rural areas. It is doubtful whether the Regulations in question, which listed the reduction of fiscal burdens as their main purpose, are of important public interest. 【69-70】

(3)  The differential treatment imposed by the Regulations in question was not substantially related to its purpose: 

     Even if alleviating the fiscal burden of the government was an important government interest, the MOE failed to provide accurate statistics to elaborate why discounting seniority could evidently achieve it. The differential treatment imposed by the Regulations in question was not substantially related to its purpose. Moreover, the accrual of seniority of certified substitute teachers should work the same as regular teachers because in practice they have already shared almost the same teaching and administrative responsibilities.【72-73】

(4)  Conclusion: 

    The Regulations in question did not pass the review of intermediate scrutiny. They violate the equality principle enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution.【74】

Note:

[1]  Relevant provisions and letters in this case: (1) Article 35, Paragraph 2 of the Teachers’ Act, as amended July 19, 2000 (Provision I); (2) Article 12 of the Regulations of Contracted Substitute Teachers and Part-time Substitute Teachers in Elementary and Junior High Schools, as amended August 18, 2014 (Provision II); (3) Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Supplement Regulations on Contracted Substitute Teachers and Part-time Teachers of New Taipei City Municipal High Schools, Junior High and Elementary Schools, as amended November 23, 2011 (Provision III); (4) First Sentence of Note 3 of the Criteria for Assessing Salary for Public Schools and Preschools Substitute Teachers issued by the Education Department of the New Taipei City Government (Provision IV); (5) Ministry of Education Letter Tai(87)-Jen(Yi)-87129048 of November 30, 1998 (hereinafter "Letter I"); (6) Ministry of Education Letter Tai-Chiao-Jen(Erh)-1050009778 of January 26, 2016, (Letter II); (7) Ministry of Education Letter Tai-Chiao-Jen(Erh)-1050044815 of April 1, 2016 (Letter III); and (8) Ministry of Education Letter Tai-Chiao-Shou-Kuo-1050121014 of November 3, 2016 (Letter IV). The names of Provisions II, III, and IV are translated by the translator of this summary for the readers' reference due to the lack of official English translation.