(1)The President of the Administrative Court and the Chief Commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission are the administrative heads of the respective agencies. Therefore, the provisions set forth in Article 81 of the Constitution are not applicable to the President of the Administrative Court or the Chief Commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission.

　　　 (2)The adjudicator of the Administrative Court and the commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission have authority to adjudicate or deliberate administrative cases independently and impartially pursuant to the law without political interference. Therefore, the adjudicator of the Administrative Court and the commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission should be considered as judges under the Constitution in accordance with Articles 78 and 80 of the Constitution. The purpose of granting tenure to judges under Article 81 of the Constitution is to allow judges to adjudicate or deliberate cases independently and impartially pursuant to the law without political interference. The respective entitlements granted to the adjudicator of the Administrative Court and the commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission shall be properly regulated by law to allow them to exercise judicial functions and to maintain job stability in compliance with the intention and purpose of Article 81 of the Constitution.

　　　 The President of the Administrative Court and the Chief Commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission are the administrative heads of the respective agencies. The President of the Administrative Court, who also serves as an adjudicator, may be required by his/her position to serve as a presiding judge. The Chief Commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission does not participate in the deliberation of a disciplinary action against a civil servant. Neither the President of the Administrative Court nor the Chief Commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission is considered to be a judge under Article 80 of the Constitution and is not entitled to tenure. Therefore, the provisions set forth in Article 81 of the Constitution are not applicable to the President of the Administrative Court or the Chief Commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission.

　　　 Article 77 of the Constitution provides that the Judicial Yuan is the supreme judicial agency of the country, adjudicating civil, criminal or administrative cases and civil servant disciplinary actions. The adjudicator of the Administrative Court and the commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission have authority to adjudicate or deliberate administrative cases independently and impartially pursuant to the law without political interference. Therefore, the adjudicator of the Administrative Court and the commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission should be considered as judges under the Constitution in accordance with Article 80 of the Constitution.　 J. Y. Interpretation No. 13 has clarified that a judge under Article 81 of the Constitution is the same as a judge prescribed in Article 80 of the Constitution. The purpose of granting tenure to judges under Article 81 of the Constitution is to allow judges to adjudicate or deliberate cases independently and impartially pursuant to the law without political interference. However, judges entitled to tenure are not exempted from dismissal, suspension or discharge of official duties due to incompetency. Thus the entitlements granted to the adjudicator of the Administrative Court and the commissioner of the Public Functionaries Disciplinary Commission shall be properly regulated by law to allow them to exercise the judicial functions and to maintain the job stability in compliance with the intention and purpose of Article 81 of the Constitution. To ensure that judges properly perform their official duties, their qualifications shall also be regulated by law accordingly.