The legal purpose of the rules of Article 11 of the Statute for Temple Registration, regarding the replacement of the temple administrator where the raising of funds for construction of a temple is concerned, is consistent with the Statute of the Supervision of Temples, which is to protect the temple property and to promote relevant public interest. Therefore, such objective is not in contravention with the purpose of the Constitution to protect the property rights of the people.

　　　 As provided under Article 5 of the Statute for Temple Registration: “A　record of the assets and property of a temple should be filed with the government for registration”.　Article 6 of the same statute also provides: “The assets and property of a temple belong to the temple, and shall be administered by the headmaster or administrator of the temple.　Any monk in the temple who has the administrative authority, no matter what title he is using, shall be considered a headmaster or an administrator.　However, a non-citizen of the Republic of China cannot be a headmaster or administrator.”　Any person who violates the preceding provision shall be subject to the preceding section of Article 11 of the same statute, “The government authority in charge may replace the headmaster or administrator”.　Even if the person who administers the temple is not a monk, and his title is not that of headmaster, if such person has actual administrative power, the legal objective of the preceding Article 6 shall follow, and the above provision of Article 11 shall still apply.

　　　 The Ministry of the Interior stipulated a temple registration regulation based on its legal authority and Article 11 of said regulation states, “Where a temple has been given notice for late filing of registration, and a newly established temple has not yet filed for registration, the temple authority shall be required to register; and if there is no special reason for such delay, the authority in charge may replace the headmaster or administrator”. For fundraising of temple construction, the legal objective is consistent with the legal purpose of the aforementioned Statute for the Supervision of Temples, which is to protect the property and assets of the temple, and to enhance the necessary public interest. Thus, it is not contradictory to the core objective of the Constitution which is to protect the property rights of the people.　With regards to the replacement of the dismissed headmaster or administrator, who has been in charge of fundraising for temple construction, this issue is explained in our Yuan’s Interpretation No. 1788.

　　　 This interpretation is mainly intended to address the issue of fundraising for temple construction. Any other issues regarding temples are beyond the scope of this interpretation.