Annotated Republic of China Case Law/Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 499

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 499

Date[edit]

24 March 2000

Issue[edit]

The Constitutional Amendment decreed on 15 September 1999 is unconstitutional?

Holding[edit]

The Constitution is the national radical supreme law. Its amendment is greatly related to the stability of constitutional order and all nationals' well being, so the constitutional amending institution shall do it with proper constitutional amendment procedure. Furthermore, constitutional amendment is the conduct most directly reflecting national sovereignty, so it shall be publicly and clearly done to satisfy the condition of rational communication to provide the proper basis of a constitutional country. The National Assembly is the only institution to represent all nationals to exercise constitutional amending rights pursuant to Article 25, Clause 3 of Section 1 of Article 27 of the Constitution and Clause 4 of Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitutional Amendment decreed on 21 July 1997. Its making or amending Constitutional Amendments pursuant to the procedures to amend the Constitution shall comply with the principle to be public and clear, and it shall obey Article 174 of the Constitution and the relevant rules of the Meeting Rule of the National Assembly, to get the reasonable expectation and trust of the nationals of the entire country.

Secret voting to pass the Constitutional Amendment would violate the principle of transparency in the procedure.

Effect[edit]

Judicially nullifying the fifth version of the Constitutional Amendment decreed on 15 September 1999 would revert it to the fourth version decreed in 1997. Soon after, the sixth version would be passed on 24 April 2000 and decreed on 25 April 2000 to freeze the National Assembly.

Reference[edit]