A unified interpretation made by this Yuan in respect of any statute or regulation upon petition by a central or local government agency by reason of any difference in opinions of such agency on the application of such statute or regulation while performing its duties or functions shall become effective as of the date of delivery of the interpretation, unless otherwise expressly stated therein. Such interpretation shall be applicable where cases giving rise to such difference in opinions and other similar cases are being dealt with by all other government agencies. But if an irrevocable final adjudication has been made in respect of the case giving rise to such difference in opinions and the view expressed by the court on the application of any law or regulation is held by our interpretation to be inconsistent with the intention of such law or regulation, our interpretation may of course be invoked to support a motion for a new trial or an extraordinary appeal.

　　　 Article 7 of the Grand Justices Council Adjudication Act, which provides that a central or local government agency may file a petition for the unified interpretation of a statute or regulation if it has an opinion different from that of any other agency or a branch of the same agency on such statute or regulation while carrying out its duty or function, is based on Article 78 of the Constitution, which grants the Judiciary the power to give unified interpretation of all laws and orders, thus making the Judiciary responsible for interpreting the true and precise meaning of laws with binding force upon all government agencies in their application of such laws. An interpretation given by the Judiciary upon such application must therefore become effective as of the date of its delivery unless it is otherwise expressly stated therein.

　　　 Since a unified interpretation made by this Yuan in respect of a statute or regulation lays down a ground rule for government agencies in their application of law. The interpretation must therefore be made applicable where such law or regulation is being applied by such agencies in handling cases giving rise to such difference in opinions and other similar cases. If, however, an irrevocable final adjudication has been made in respect of the case giving rise to such difference in opinions and the view expressed by the court on the application of any law or regulation is held by our interpretation to be inconsistent with the intention of such law or regulation, and such adjudication constitutes an apparent error in application of law or a violation of law, the party must be allowed to seek remedies in pursuance of legal procedures by invoking our interpretation as a ground to support his motion for a new trial or for extraordinary appeal so that his right and interest may be protected.