Article 19 of the Constitution provides: “The people shall bear a taxation obligation in accordance with law.　In this provision, the Constitution mandates that, should any taxation obligation be imposed upon the people, it shall be specified by a statute.　The Constitution does not require, however, in which statute or in what title of statute such an obligation should be set forth.　It is constitutionally permissible to have a statute whose provisions establish an authorization on taxation obligation for a particular purpose, but only if the obligation is established in statutory provisions clearly defined and within the application scope specifically set out.　There is no constitutional violation in the provisions authorizing the imposition of the special tax for education in Article 16, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3, of the Compulsory Education Act and Article 18, Paragraph 1, of the Financial Classification of Revenue and Expenditure Act, pursuant to the reasoning given above.

　　　 Article 19 of the Constitution imposes upon the people a taxation obligation which is set out by law.　The implication of this Article was manifested in J.Y. Interpretation No. 217.　It is more appropriate for the taxation provisions to be set forth in a statute in a title of act regulating certain categories of taxes.　 Yet the Constitution does not require that there be a specific type of statute for setting forth such an obligation.　The Legislative Yuan is constitutionally permitted to authorize the administrative agency in charge of taxation affairs to decide the issue of imposing certain types of tax through statutory provisions which are clearly defined and specifically orientated.　To cope with the financial needs of compulsory education, the Compulsory Education Act provides in Article 16, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3: "The provincial (special city) government may collect necessary funds within the limited amount framed by tax statutes and the Financial Classification of Revenue and Expenditure Act in respect to provincial (special city) or prefecture (municipal) local tax, by permission of the Executive Yuan.　Those measures will not be subject to the restrictions indicated in the proviso clause of Article 18, Paragraph 1, of the Financial Classification of Revenue and Expenditure Act.　The said proviso clause provides:"However, the provincial (special city) or prefecture (municipal)(bureau) government may, with the permission of the Executive Yuan, impose a special tax for education not exceeding 30 percent against the original rate for the tax imposed by the prefecture (municipal)(bureau) under this Article.　The rationale is based on the flexibility of the local tax rate manifested by law: since the local tax rate has been reviewed and passed by local councils, to save time and effort, the imposition of a special tax for education need not be reviewed again by the councils.　Nevertheless,　this does not mean that the local administrations may raise the tax rate which has been reviewed and passed by local councils.　It only means that the local administrations may authorize the agencies-in-charge to decide upon and execute the imposition of the special tax for education within the scope of 30 percent against the original tax rate.　Since the measures are consistent with the authorization requirements in general, i.e., specification in purpose, concreteness in contents and clarity in scope, they are by no means contrary to the constitutional requirements.　As to whether the fund collection in the name of the special tax for education is aimed at only one of the various local taxes by percentage, this is a question of administrative discretion within the range of legal authorization.　To be noted accordingly, the discretion should be subject to an overall consideration, constant review and necessary improvement.