Thursday, July 3, 2008

The Judicial Yuan 2

Original post by

Article 78 of the Constitution of the ROC states:

The Judicial Yuan shall interpret the Constitution and shall have the power to unify the interpretation of laws and orders.

司法院  [Sīfǎyuàn]  /Judicial yuan/
解釋  [jiěshì]  /explanation/to explain/to interpret/to resolve/
憲法  [xiànfǎ]  /constitution (of a country)/
並  [bìng]  /and/furthermore/simultaneously/also/together with/
有  [yǒu]  /to have/there is/there are/to exist/to be/
統一  [tǒngyī]  /to unify/to unite/to integrate/
法律  [fǎlü] /law/
及  [jí]  /and/
命令  [mìnglìng]  /(an) order or command/
之  [zhī]  /(literary equivalent of 的)/
權  [quán]  /authority/power/right/

This article gives the Judicial Yuan the power to 'interpret' the constitution and the power to 'unify the interpretatin of laws and orders'.  I would like to explore this further.

Relevant issues pertaining to procedures for interpreting the constitution and uniform interpretation of Laws and Statutes can be found in Chapter 2 of the
Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act.

Article 4 states:
The matters for which the Justices shall interpret the Constitution are as follows:
1. Matters concerning doubts and ambiguities in the application of the Constitution;
2. Matters concerning the constitutionality of statutes or regulations;
3. Matters concerning the constitutionality of laws and regulations promulgated by the
self-government provinces and counties.

Article 5 states:
A petition for an interpretation of the Constitution may be filed under one of the following circumstances:
1.When a government  agency, in carrying out its function and duty, has
doubt about the meaning of a constitutional provision; or, when a
government agency conflicts with other agencies in the application of
a constitutional provision; or, when a government agency has
questions about the constitutionality of a statute or regulation at

2.When an individual, a legal entity, or a political party, whose
constitutional  right was infringed upon and remedies provided by law
for such infringement had been exhausted, has questions on the
constitutionality of the statute or regulation relied thereupon by
the court of last resort in its final judgment; or

3.When one-third of the Legislators or more have doubt about the
meanings of a constitutional  provision governing their functions and
duties, or question on the constitutionality of a statute at issue,
and have therefor initiated a petition. (help me with the chinese on this ending part)

Article 7 states:
Petition for Uniform Interpretation of Statutes and Regulations
1.When a government agency, in carrying out its function and duty, has
an opinion on a statute or regulation different from another agency, or
another branch of the same agency;  provided, however, that said agency
shall not be subordinated to, or bound by the opinion of another agency
or branch; or

2.When an individual, a legal entity, or a political party, whose right
was infringed upon and remedies provided by law for such infringement
had been exhausted, in good conscience feels that the court in rendering
its final decision has construed the statute or regulation at issue
different from those expressed by other judicial  bodies in
their precedents.  However, this provision shall not apply, if the
case is still appealable,  or the precedent has already been

The types of ‘judgements’ are as follows:
解釋  [jiěshì] Interpretations
判例  [pànlì]  Precident
裁判  [cáipàn]  Judgement
決議  [juéyì]  Resolution
統一解釋  [tongyijieshi]  Uniform Interpretation
議決  [yìjué]  Resolution

1 Comment:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the informaiton.

Keep going!!