At the time the cause of petition occurred, if the alleged unconstitutional administrative ordinance by the petitioner had already been repealed, even if based on which a court has already rendered a judgment, the issue is whether the petition may seek redress or remedy in accordance with the litigation procedure, not whether there is any contradiction with the Constitution.

　　　 In summary, the petitioner claims that he filed a request for retirement in 1974 to the Jade Mountain District Office of the Taiwan Forestry Bureau. Yet the pension he received did not include a certain "professional supplement," an item deleted in accordance with Article 11 of the Measures on the Adjustment of Compensation to Military, Government and Education Personnel of 1971, promulgated by the Executive Yuan. The Supreme Court, in its (67) Tai Shun No. 1464 Judgment, ruled against the petitioner by relying on the same provision. Now the petitioner files the present petition claiming this regulation contradicts Article 8 of the Public Functionaries Retirement Act and Article 172 of the Constitution.

　　　 That ordinances, regulations, or rules contradictory to the Constitution or laws shall be null and void, as provided in Article 172 of the Constitution, means those regulations still in effect whose content contradicts the Constitution or laws. The regulation in question here was repealed as of July 1, 1973, in accordance with Tai (62) Ren Cheng Si Tze No. 19500 Letter, issued by the Executive Yuan on June 15, 1973, and transmitted to all subordinate agencies through the Taiwan Provincial Government by its Fu Ren Bin Tze No. 68765 Letter on June 27. Since this regulation was repealed prior to the petitioner's request for retirement, the calculation of his pension was not based on that regulation, which can be found in Taiwan Forestry Bureau's (70) Lin Ren Tze No. 24203 Letter of Response, issued on June 18, 1981. Therefore, the alleged unconstitutional regulation was repealed and had lost its effect before the cause of action was raised. Even though a court has already rendered a judgment based on this regulation, the issue is whether the petition may seek redress or remedy in accordance with the litigation procedure, not whether there is any contradiction with the Constitution.