Article 32, Section 1, of the Public Service Election and Recall Law promulgated during the Period of Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (the title of the law was changed to the Public Service Election and Recall Law on August 2, 1991), revised and publicized on February 3, 1989, with regard to the restrictions on educational background and working experience of candidates for all levels of elected representatives, does not contradict the Constitution.　However, such restrictions should be reconsidered in light of the popularity of education among people.　Should they be deemed necessary, their underlying reasoning should be supported by evidence? The circumstances of those who have difficulty completing compulsory education should also be taken into consideration and appropriate rules should be proposed accordingly.　These should be done through the reasonable discretion of the legislature.

　　　 People should seek redress through administrative appeal and litigation for any administrative dispositions they deem to be unjust.　 However, there are no rules in the current National Compensation Act governing whether the procedure of administrative litigation should be applied first where the issue is the legality of an administrative disposition which is a precondition for recovery in a civil action.　Therefore, some cases that involve the legality of administrative dispositions have been decided in civil court.　It should be further noted that since the final judgment has been rendered in a civil action for the case currently before us, we still accept the filing for Constitutional interpretation.

　　　 Article 130 of the Constitution provides: “Any citizen of the Republic of China who has attained the age of 20 years shall have the right to vote in accordance with law.　Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any citizen who has attained the age of 23 years shall have the right to be elected in accordance with law.”　Accordingly, the law provides some latitude by stipulating some conditions to regulate the exercise of the right to be elected within reasonable discretion.　Article 32, Section 1, of the Public Service Election and Recall Law promulgated during the Period of Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (the title of the law was changed to the Public Service Election and Recall Law on August 2, 1991), revised and publicized on February 3, 1989, with regard to the restrictions on educational background and working experience of candidates for all levels of elected representatives, though not typical in comparison with other countries, shall not be deemed contrary to the Constitution for the purpose of promoting the efficacy and quality of all levels of representative organs in light of the current state of this country.　However, as the pursuit of education grows even more popular and voters’ ability to make informed choices becomes better, whether such restrictions should be maintained should be considered in light of the examples of other democracies. Should they be deemed necessary, their underlying reasoning should be supported by evidence. The circumstances of those who have difficulty completing compulsory education should also be considered （e.g., those with physical or other disabilities who have difficulties completing a normal education） and appropriate rules should be stipulated accordingly by reasonable discretion of the legislature.　

　　　 People should seek redress through administrative appeals and litigation for administrative dispositions they deem unjust. However, there are no rules in the current National Compensation Act governing whether the procedure of administrative litigation should be applied first where the issue is the legality of an administrative disposition which is a precondition for recovery in a civil action.　Therefore, some cases that involve the legality of administrative dispositions have been decided in civil court.　It should be further noted that since the final judgment has been rendered in a civil action for the case currently before us, we still accept the filing for Constitutional interpretation.