J.Y. Interpretation 687

On May 27, 2011, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 687. It asks:

對故意致公司逃漏稅捐之公司負責人一律處徒刑之規定，違憲？

Holding:

中華民國六十五年十月二十二日制定公布之稅捐稽徵法第四十七條第一款規定：「本法關於納稅義務人……應處徒刑之規定，於左列之人適用之：一、公司法規定之公司負責人。」（即九十八年五月二十七日修正公布之同條第一項第一款）係使公司負責人因自己之刑事違法且有責之行為，承擔刑事責任，與無責任即無處罰之憲法原則並無牴觸。至「應處徒刑之規定」部分，有違憲法第七條之平等原則，應自本解釋公布日起，至遲於屆滿一年時，失其效力。

釋字第687號新聞稿

林大法官錫堯提出之協同意見書

蔡大法官清遊提出之協同意見書

黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書

許大法官玉秀提出之部分協同意見書

蘇大法官永欽、徐大法官璧湖共同提出之部分協同、部分不同意見書

許大法官宗力、林大法官子儀共同提出之部分不同意見書

池大法官啟明提出之部分不同意見書

李大法官震山提出之部分不同意見書

陳大法官新民提出之不同意見書

J.Y. Interpretation 686

On March 25, 2011, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 686. It asks:

解釋公布前以同一法令合法提請解釋未併案之不同聲請人，是否同為解釋效力所及？

Holding:

本院就人民聲請解釋之案件作成解釋公布前，原聲請人以外之人以同一法令牴觸憲法疑義聲請解釋，雖未合併辦理，但其聲請經本院大法官決議認定符合法定要件者，其據以聲請之案件，亦可適用本院釋字第一七七號解釋所稱「本院依人民聲請所為之解釋，對聲請人據以聲請之案件，亦有效力」。本院釋字第一九三號解釋應予補充。

釋字第686號新聞稿

黃大法官茂榮提出之部分協同、部分不同意見書

陳大法官新民提出之不同意見書

徐大法官璧湖提出之不同意見書

J.Y. Interpretation 683

On December 24, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 683. It asks:

勞保現金給付未於收到申請十日內發給，違憲？

Holding:

中華民國八十五年九月十三日修正發布之勞工保險條例施行細則第五十七條規定：「被保險人或其受益人申請現金給付手續完備經審查應予發給者，保險人應於收到申請書之日起十日內發給之。」旨在促使勞工保險之保險人儘速完成勞工保險之現金給付，以保障被保險勞工或其受益人於保險事故發生後之生活，符合憲法保護勞工基本國策之本旨。

釋字第683號新聞稿

林大法官錫堯提出之協同意見書

許大法官宗力提出之協同意見書

葉大法官百修提出之協同意見書

黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書

陳大法官新民提出之部分不同意見書

President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan

The bios for the new President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan were published.

The Honorable Chief Justice & President of Judicial Yuan Hau-Min Rai

The Honorable Justice & Vice President of Judicial Yuan Yeong-Chin Su

J.Y. Interpretation 681

On September 9, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 681. It asks:

不服撤銷假釋處分，不得提起行政爭訟；如有異議，應俟執行殘刑時，向原裁判法院為之，違憲？

Holding:

最高行政法院中華民國九十三年二月份庭長法官聯席會議決議：「假釋之撤銷屬刑事裁判執行之一環，為廣義之司法行政處分，如有不服，其救濟程序，應依刑事訴訟法第四百八十四條之規定，即俟檢察官指揮執行該假釋撤銷後之殘餘徒刑時，再由受刑人或其法定代理人或配偶向當初諭知該刑事裁判之法院聲明異議，不得提起行政爭訟。」及刑事訴訟法第四百八十四條規定：「受刑人或其法定代理人或配偶以檢察官執行之指揮為不當者，得向諭知該裁判之法院聲明異議。」並未剝奪人民就撤銷假釋處分依法向法院提起訴訟尋求救濟之機會，與憲法保障訴訟權之意旨尚無牴觸。惟受假釋人之假釋處分經撤銷者，依上開規定向法院聲明異議，須俟檢察官指揮執行殘餘刑期後，始得向法院提起救濟，對受假釋人訴訟權之保障尚非周全，相關機關應儘速予以檢討改進，俾使不服主管機關撤銷假釋之受假釋人，於入監執行殘餘刑期前，得適時向法院請求救濟。

釋字第681號新聞稿

林大法官子儀及許大法官玉秀共同提出之協同意見書

葉大法官百修提出之協同意見書

黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書

陳大法官新民提出之不同意見書

J.Y. Interpretation 678

On July 2, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 678. It asks:

電信法就無線電頻率使用應經許可,違者處刑罰並沒收器材等規定違憲?

Holding:

電信法第四十八條第一項前段、第五十八條第二項及第六十條關於未經核准擅自使用無線電頻率者，應予處罰及沒收之規定部分，與憲法第二十三條之比例原則尚無牴觸，亦與憲法第十一條保障人民言論自由、第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨無違。

678新聞稿

許大法官宗力提出之協同意見書

葉大法官百修提出之協同意見書

陳大法官新民提出之協同意見書

黃大法官茂榮提出之協同意見書

陳大法官春生提出之協同意見書

林大法官子儀、李大法官震山共同提出之部分協同、部分不同意見書

許大法官玉秀提出之一部協同一部不同意見書

J.Y. Interpretation 675

On April 9, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 675. It asks:

金融重建基金設置及管理條例，對經營不善金融機構非存款債務不賠付之規定違憲？

Holding:

中華民國九十四年六月二十二日修正公布之行政院金融重建基金設置及管理條例第四條第五項，關於「本條例修正施行後，主管機關或農業金融中央主管機關處理經營不善金融機構時，該金融機構非存款債務不予賠付」之規定，就非存款債務不予賠付部分，旨在增進行政院金融重建基金之使用效益，保障金融機構存款人權益及穩定金融信用秩序，其目的洵屬正當，該手段與立法目的之達成具有合理關聯性，與憲法第七條規定尚無牴觸。

675號新聞稿

葉大法官百修協同意見書

黃大法官茂榮協同意見書

池大法官啟明、徐大法官璧湖共同提出部分不同意見書

J.Y. Interpretation 673

On March 26, 2010, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 673. It asks:

所得稅法就扣繳義務人及違背扣繳義務之處罰等規定違憲?

Holding:

中華民國七十八年十二月三十日修正公布之所得稅法第八十九條第一項第二款前段，有關以機關、團體之主辦會計人員為扣繳義務人部分，及八十八年二月九日修正公布與九十五年五月三十日修正公布之同條款前段，關於以事業負責人為扣繳義務人部分，與憲法第二十三條比例原則尚無牴觸。



七十八年十二月三十日修正公布及九十年一月三日修正公布之所得稅法第一百十四條第一款，有關限期責令扣繳義務人補繳應扣未扣或短扣之稅款及補報扣繳憑單，暨就已於限期內補繳應扣未扣或短扣之稅款及補報扣繳憑單，按應扣未扣或短扣之稅額處一倍之罰鍰部分；就未於限期內補繳應扣未扣或短扣之稅款，按應扣未扣或短扣之稅額處三倍之罰鍰部分，尚未牴觸憲法第二十三條比例原則，與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨無違。



上開所得稅法第一百十四條第一款後段，有關扣繳義務人不按實補報扣繳憑單者，應按應扣未扣或短扣之稅額處三倍之罰鍰部分，未賦予稅捐稽徵機關得參酌具體違章狀況，按情節輕重裁量罰鍰之數額，其處罰顯已逾越必要程度，就此範圍內，不符憲法第二十三條之比例原則，與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨有違，應自本解釋公布之日起停止適用。有關機關對未於限期內按實補報扣繳憑單，而處罰尚未確定之案件，應斟酌個案情節輕重，並參酌稅捐稽徵法第四十八條之三之規定，另為符合比例原則之適當處置，併予指明。

第673號新聞稿

葉大法官百修提出之協同意見書

許大法官玉秀提出之不同意見書

黃大法官茂榮提出之不同意見書

J.Y. Interpretation 662 - English Version

On March 16, 2010 the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued the English translation of J.Y. Interpretation 662, it asks:

Does Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, which stipulates that for several offenses each carries a sentence convertible to fines, if the merged executable sentence should exceed six months, then the final sentence may not be converted to fines, violate the Constitution?

Holding:

Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the current Penal Code, amended and promulgated as of February 2, 2005, which precludes the application of Paragraph 1 of the same provision on sentences convertible into fines in the event the merger of executable sentences for several offenses that exceeds six months of imprisonment, even with each sentence that may be convertible into fines, violates Article 23 of the Constitution and J. Y. Interpretation No. 366, and shall be invalid on the issuance date this Interpretation.

With regard to the part that concerns temporary disposition in accordance with Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, as requested by the two petitioners, there is no need to provide further review in light of this Interpretation. In addition, with regard to the constitutional interpretation filed by one of the petitioners concerning Article 53 of the Penal Code, given that this part of the petition is dismissed, the related temporary disposition is no longer pendent and shall also be dismissed.

J.Y. Interpretation 671

On January 29, 2009, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 671. It asks:

土地登記規則第107條違憲?

憲法第十五條關於人民財產權應予保障之規定，旨在確保個人依財產之存續狀態行使其自由使用、收益及處分之權能，不得因他人之法律行為而受侵害。分別共有不動產之應有部分，於設定抵押權後，共有物經分割者，其抵押權不因此而受影響（民法第八百二十五條及第八百六十八條規定參照）。於分割前未先徵得抵押權人同意者，於分割後，自係以原設定抵押權而經分別轉載於各宗土地之應有部分，為抵押權之客體。是強制執行時，係以分割後各宗土地經轉載抵押權之應有部分為其執行標的物。於拍定後，因拍定人取得抵押權客體之應有部分，由拍定人與其他共有人，就該不動產全部回復共有關係，其他共有人回復分割前之應有部分，經轉載之應有部分抵押權因已實行而消滅，從而得以維護其他共有人及抵押權人之權益。準此，中華民國九十年九月十四日修正發布之土地登記規則第一百零七條之規定，符合民法規定之意旨，亦與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之規定，尚無牴觸。

J.Y. Interpretation 670

On January 29, 2009, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 670. It asks:

冤賠法第2條第3款因故意或重大過失受押不賠償違憲?

受無罪判決確定之受害人，因有故意或重大過失行為致依刑事訴訟法第一百零一條第一項或軍事審判法第一百零二條第一項受羈押者，依冤獄賠償法第二條第三款規定，不得請求賠償，並未斟酌受害人致受羈押之行為，係涉嫌實現犯罪構成要件或係妨礙、誤導偵查審判，亦無論受害人致受羈押行為可歸責程度之輕重及因羈押所受損失之大小，皆一律排除全部之補償請求，並非避免補償失當或浮濫等情事所必要，不符冤獄賠償法對個別人民身體之自由，因實現國家刑罰權之公共利益，受有超越一般應容忍程度之特別犧牲時，給予所規範之補償，以符合憲法保障人民身體自由及平等權之立法意旨，而與憲法第二十三條之比例原則有違，應自本解釋公布之日起至遲於屆滿二年時失其效力。

J.Y. Interpretation 663 - English Version

On January 26, 2010 the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued the English translation of J.Y. Interpretation 663, it asks:

Is the stipulation that the legal effect of the service of process to any individual joint owner will be applied to all joint owners as though all have been timely served under Article 19, Paragraph 3 of the Tax Levy Act in contravention of the Constitution?

Holding:

Article 19, Paragraph 3, of the Tax Levy Act stipulates that for all kinds of notifications issued for the purpose of tax collection, “the legal effect of the service of process to any individual joint owner will be applied to all joint owners as though all have been timely served.” When applied to the administrative act of tax assessment, the quoted stipulation will produce the legal effect that a service of process to any individual joint owner will be deemed as services of process to all joint owners. It is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of due process of law and infringes the constitutional rights of the joint owners who are never actually served both to institute administrative appeals and to institute legal proceedings, and is hence in contravention of Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the quoted stipulation shall be inapplicable no later than two years after we hand down this interpretation.

"Lesson in Integrity for All" by Professor Jerome A. Cohen‏

A very interesting article, "Lesson in Integrity for All" by Professor Jerome A. Cohen‏ was published recently.

English

Chinese

J.Y. Interpretation 655

Original post by www.taiwanlawresources.com

On February 20, 2009 the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation 655, regarding the Certified Bookkeepers Act, it states:


96.7.11修正之記帳士法第2條第2項違憲?

記帳士係專門職業人員，依憲法第八十六條第二款規定，其執業資格應經考試院依法考選之。記帳士法第二條第二項之規定，使未經考試院依法考試及格之記帳及報稅代理業務人取得與經依法考選為記帳士者相同之資格，有違上開憲法規定之意旨，應自本解釋公布之日起失其效力。





655 Press Release
林大法官子儀提出Concurring in Part
李大法官震山提出Concurring
葉大法官百修提出Concurring
許大法官玉秀提出Dissenting
陳大法官新民提出Dissenting

Constitution
Certified Bookkeepers Act

Liumang Law Abolished, Prisoners Released

I know it's old news, but the Judicial Yuan issued an English press release yesterday.



Press Release.

J.Y. Interpretation 648 (English Version)

On February 13, 2009 the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued the English version of Interpretation 648, it asks:

進出口貨物查驗準則第十五條第一項違憲？

Is Paragraph 1, Article 15 of the Import and Export Goods Inspection Guidelines Unconstitutional?

李大法官震山不同意見書(Dissenting Opinion)

Justices of the Constitutional Court II

Original post by www.taiwanlawresources.com

The Constitutional Court interprets the Constitution with respect to the following matters:

（1）Uncertainties regarding the application of the Constitution;

（2）The constitutionality of laws or orders; and

（3）The constitutionality of local government laws.

The Honorable Chief Justice & President of the Judicial Yuan Lai, In–Jaw

The Honorable Justice & Vice President of the Judicial Yuan Tsay-Chuan Hsieh

The Honorable Justice Pi-Hu Hsu

The Honorable Justice Feng-Zhi Peng

The Honorable Justice Tzu-Yi Lin

The Honorable Justice Tzong-Li Hsu

The Honorable Justice Yu-hsiu Hsu

The Honorable Justice Si-Yao Lin

The Honorable Justice Qi-Ming Chi

The Honorable Justice Chen-Shan Li

The Honorable Justice Ching-You Tsai

Changes in Law News Feed II

Original post by www.taiwanlawresources.com

A website maintained by the Judicial Yuan containing up-to-date changes in the law of the R.O.C. can be found here.

Judicial Yuan Case Database II

Original post by www.taiwanlawresources.com

Links to the Judicial Yuan Case Database can be found here.

Major laws pertaining to the Judicial Yuan can be found here.

To search interpretations, go here.

To search judgments and rulings, go here.

To search summary division cases, go here.

To search invalidating judgements, go here.

J.Y. Interpretation 645 - Repeat

Original post by www.taiwanlawresources.com

On July 11, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued interpretation number 645.

The issue is with the following:

公投法中立法院有公投提案權違憲? 公投審議委員的任命規定違憲?
Is the right given to the Legislative Yuan [MS: Article 16] to raise proposals according to the Referendum Act unconstitutional? Are the appointment and nomination regulations [MS: Article 35] set forth in the Referendum Act unconstitutional?

You can read the rest of the interpretation (Chinese) here. Translation coming soon.

The news release for Interpretation 645 can be found here. (Chinese)
Justice 許玉秀's report concurring in part and dissenting in part can be found here. (Chinese)
Justice 彭鳳至's dissenting opinion can be found here. (Chinese)