Interpretation
J.Y.
Interpretation |
NO.720
[ The judicial remedies for a detainee before revision of Article 6 of the Detention Act ]
|
| Date |
2014/5/16 |
| Issue |
Before revision of the Detention Act, what judicial remedies are available for a detainee who disagrees with a decision of the detention house in a grievance proceeding? |
| Holding |
1 The provisions of Article 6 of the Detention Act and Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules for the Detention Act, disallowing a detainee to institute proceedings in court for judicial remedies, were interpreted by Interpretation No. 653 of this Court as violating the people’s right of litigation protected by Article 16 of the Constitution, and this Court ordered the government to revise the Detention Act and relevant regulations within two years from the date of publication of the said Interpretation, and to provide detainees with a timely, effective remedy in accordance with the intention of the said Interpretation. Before the revision of the aforementioned laws, a detainee who contests decisions made by the complaint system of the detention house shall be permitted to invoke the quasi-motion provisions of Article 416 of the Criminal Procedural Act to seek remedies from the court ordering the detention. Interpretation No. 653 of this Court shall be supplemented accordingly. |
| Reasoning |
1 Detention is the maximum sanction against personal freedom. A detainee who thinks that an adverse decision made by the detaining authority exceeds the scope necessary for achieving the purpose of detention, or necessary for maintaining order at the place of detention, thereby unlawfully jeopardizing his/her constitutionally protected rights, should be permitted to bring an action in court for judicial remedy. Article 6 of the Detention Act and Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules for the same Act, disallowing a detainee to bring action in court for remedies, was declared by Interpretation No. 653 of this Court as contrary to the intention of Article 16 of the Constitution protecting the people’s right of litigation, and this Court mandated the government to study and to revise the Detention Act and relevant regulations within two years from the date of publication of the said Interpretation in accordance with the intention of the said Interpretation. However, the two year deadline has not been observed, and the laws are not yet revised. In order to protect the right of litigation for a detainee disagreeing with the treatment or disciplinary action taken by a detention house, before the revision of the aforementioned laws, a detainee who contests decisions made by the complaint system of the detention house shall be permitted to invoke the quasi-motion provisions of Article 416 of the Criminal Procedural Act to seek remedies from the court ordering the detention. Interpretation No. 653 of this Court shall be supplemented accordingly.
______________________
＊ Translated by Prof. Huai-Ching TSAI.
|
| Editor's Note |
Summary of facts:
Petitioner Wang Bo-Chun was detained for a cause. He contested a sanction of segregation imposed by the detention house and applied for a review of its decision. His application was deemed groundless. He then instituted an administrative action in court, which was again denied by the Highest Administrative Court by Order No. 1654 of 2004 on the grounds that he was unqualified to initiate an administrative action. The appeal being final he petitioned for an interpretation of the Constitution. The Grand Justices issued Interpretation No. 653, and declared that Article 6 of the Detention Act and Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules for the same Act disallowing a detainee to bring action in court for remedies, was contrary to the intention of Article 16 of the Constitution protecting the people’s right of litigation. The Grand Justices ordered that the government should study and revise the Detention Act and relevant regulations within two years from the date of publication of the Interpretation to provide the detainee with a timely, effective judicial remedy.
Following Interpretation No. 653, the petitioner requested a new trial under Article 273, paragraph 2 of the Administrative Procedural Law. However, the Highest Administrative Court in Order No. 2162 of 2009 was of the opinion that Interpretation No. 653 did not declare pertinent provisions of the Detention Act and so lost effect immediately. Hence it was not beneficial to the petitioner’s case. As such, the petitioner’s case was deprived of coverage by the aforementioned Administrative Procedural Law. Therefore, the court denied the application for a new trial. The petitioner then requested a supplementary interpretation for Interpretation No. 653.
|
Opinion
(Files) |
Chinese only
|
PRINT