As stipulated by Paragraph 3, Article 31, of the Statute Governing the Appointment of Educators concerning the suspension of duties during involvement in an ongoing court case, any individual currently involved in an ongoing legal case in a court of law may not resume work as an educator.　This ban is constitutionally permissible, in that under the aforementioned circumstances, an individual may temporarily be unable to sustain his/her capacity as an educator, and to also safeguard the general public interest.　However, should the contracted work period of the suspended educator expire, and the educator later be exonerated from any criminal wrongdoings or administrative violations by the judicial process and subsequently rehabilitated by the original employer, arrangements for compensation or recovery of benefits for the lost time shall be determined by the competent authorities.　

　　　 Paragraph 3, Article 31, of the Statute Governing the Appointment of Educators concerning suspension of duties stipulates that any individual currently involved in an ongoing court case may not resume work as an educator.　There may be situations in which the aforementioned individual will be unfit to carry out educational responsibilities, as individuals under these circumstances may not be able to concentrate on their duties due to the disruptive nature of such events.　On the basis of the aforementioned stipulation, as well as the necessity to uphold the interest of the general public, such a suspension does not conflict with the Constitution.　In the event that the suspended educator was appointed by contract by the school and was then subsequently reinstated by the school after being cleared of any criminal wrongdoings or administrative violations by a court of law, any arrangements for recovery of benefits or compensation for the lost time shall be determined by the competent authority, as there are currently no laws governing such occurrences.　As Paragraph 1, Article 19, of the Enforcement Rules Governing the Appointment of Educators stipulates: "Schools at all levels which decide not to extend the appointment of an educator upon nearing the end of the latter's appointment, shall send a written notice to the concerned educator one month before the completion of employment and notify the competent educational administration authorities." Therefore, the procedures governing the non-extension of appointments are clearly provided for the schools, and are to be adhered to.　Such an instance has already been deemed to be consistent with the Constitution, as previously reasoned in J.Y. Interpretation No. 203.