It states in Article 8, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution that physical freedom shall be guaranteed to the people and that no person shall be tried or punished otherwise than by a court of law in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It also provides in Article 16 of the Constitution that the people shall have the right of instituting legal proceedings. Active-duty soldiers are also "the people" and thus deserve the abovementioned protection. In addition, it stipulates in Article 9 of the Constitution: "except for those who are in active military service, no person shall be subject to trial by a military tribunal." Given that active-duty soldiers have the special obligation of protecting the country, a military tribunal is established for the crimes committed by said soldiers for the purpose of national security and military need. It shall not be interpreted such that military tribunals have the exclusive jurisdiction upon the crimes committed by active-duty soldiers. There is no stipulation in the Constitution concerning military trial; nevertheless, such system may be established under the law. The initiation and operation of the military trial, which is within the power of punishment of the nation, shall meet the minimum requirement of the due process of law, which requirement includes an independent and just tribunal and procedure and the compliance with constitutional principles as stated in Articles 77 and 80 of the Constitution. The laws governing the procedure of a military trial which limit the rights of active-duty soldiers shall be in compliance with the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip) as stated in Article 23 of the Constitution. In light of the spirit of protecting physical freedom and the right of instituting legal proceedings and the provision of Article 77, the defendant receiving the sentence of imprisonment in a final and conclusive judgment made by the military tribunal in peacetime shall be permitted to appeal directly to a normal court on the ground that the judgment received is in violation of the law. Articles 11, 133, Paragraphs 1 and 3, and 158 of the Military Justice Act and the rest of the Act which state that the defendant is not permitted to appeal to the normal court on the ground that the judgment received from the military tribunal is in violation of the law are unconstitutional and shall be invalidated two years after the announcement of this Interpretation, at the latest. The relevant authority shall, within the two-year period, revise relevant laws based on this principle, adjust the relevant appeal system, improve the separation of prosecution and trial in the military trial system and improve the criteria to appoint army officers to participate in military tribunals and the status protection of military judges to meet the principle of independent trial.

　　　 Physical freedom is a basic human right under the Constitution and deserves the most thorough protection. Interpretation of the Constitution and establishment of the law shall both be in compliance with this principle. It states in Article 8, Paragraph 1, of the Constitution that physical freedom shall be guaranteed to the people and that no person shall be tried or punished otherwise than by a court of law in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It also provides in Article 16 of the Constitution that the people shall have the right of instituting legal proceedings. Active-duty soldiers are also “the people” and thus deserve the abovementioned protection. In addition, it stipulates in Article 9 of the Constitution: "except for those who are in active military service, no person shall be subject to trial by a military tribunal." Given that active-duty soldiers have the special obligation of protecting the country, a military tribunal is established for the crimes committed by said soldiers for the purpose of national security and military need. It shall not be interpreted such that military tribunals have the exclusive jurisdiction upon the crimes committed by active-duty soldiers. There is no stipulation in the Constitution concerning military tribunals; nevertheless, such system may be established in the law. The initiation and operation of the military tribunal, which is within the power of punishment of the nation, shall meet the minimum requirement of the due process of law, which requirement includes an independent and just tribunal and procedure and the compliance of the constitutional principle as stated in Article 77, "the Judicial Yuan is the highest judicial body of the nation," and Article 80,"judges shall, in accordance with the law, hold trials independently, free from any interference" of the Constitution. The laws governing the procedures of military tribunals which limit the rights of military servicemen shall be in compliance with the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip) as stated in Article 23 of the Constitution.　　

　　　 In light of the spirit of protecting physical freedom and the right of instituting legal proceedings and the provision of Article 77, the military tribunal system shall be regulated differently in wartime and in peacetime. The defendant receiving the sentence of imprisonment in a final and conclusive judgment made by a military tribunal in peacetime shall be permitted to appeal directly to a normal court on the ground that the judgment received is in violation of the law. Article 11 of the Military Justice Act states that the Ministry of National Defense is the highest military tribunal body that empowers the military department to control military trials fully, which has the nature of exercising judicial power, and thus is in violation of the principle of separation of powers. Article 133, Paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Military Justice Act provides that senior officers of the military tribunal shall have the right to approve and review the judgment. In addition, Article 158 of the Military Justice Act stipulates that a military tribunal shall be formed upon the approval of the commander that empowers the administrative power to intervene in the judicial power. Articles 11, 133, Paragraphs 1 and 3, and 158 of the Military Justice Act and the rest of the Act where the dependent is not permitted to appeal to the normal court on the ground that the judgment received from the military tribunal is in violation of the law are unconstitutional and shall be invalidated two years after the announcement of this Interpretation, at the latest. The relevant authority shall, within the two-year period, revise the relevant laws based on this principle, adjust the relevant system, improve the separation of prosecution and trial in the military trial system, and improve the criteria to appoint army officers to participate in military tribunals and the status protection of military judges to meet the principle of independent trial.