The Precedent T.S.T. No. 314 (Sup. Ct., 1982) states that “when appealing against the judgment of the court of the second instance in accordance with Article 468 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the judgment did not apply the law or applied the law wrongly, the Appellant shall specify concretely and provide the article or content of such law in a petition or statement of reasons for appeal. If it is a legal principle rather than codified laws, the purposes and the points of such principles should be identified. If it is a Judicial Yuan Interpretation or Precedent of the Supreme Court, the number and content of such Interpretation or Precedent shall be indicated. If appealing to the court of the third instance with the reasons provided for in the various items of Article 469 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellant should identify the fact(s) corresponding to the itemized reason(s) in the petition or statement of reasons for appeal. If the petition or statement of reasons for appeal does not conform to the aforesaid methods, such petition or statement shall not be considered to have concretely indicated the violation of law by the judgment of the court of the second instance, and thus the appeal shall not be deemed lawful.” Such Precedent engages in the literal interpretation of the application of articles and explains the methods to present the judgment’s violation of law in the light of the meanings of Article 470, Paragraph 2, and Article 476 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without imposing any additional limitation than what the law provides for. Thus, the people’s exercise of their rights to litigation is not hindered and such Precedent does not contradict Article 16 of the Constitution.

　　　 The people’s rights to litigation under Article 16 of the Constitution refer to the people’s beneficial rights to judicature, where the people have the rights to file lawsuits when their rights are infringed upon and the courts are obligated to provide a lawful trial. Judicial Yuan Interpretation Nos. 154, 160 and 179 have already elucidated this issue. Because it is not provided for in the Constitution as to how such right shall be exercised, the Legislative Branch can make reasonable enactments in consideration of the nature of the lawsuits. According to Article 467 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure of the court of the third instance shall be the one for legal review and no appeal against the judgment of the court of the second instance shall be filed without asserting its violation of laws as the reason for appeal. Article 470, Paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure further provides that the appeal shall be made by submitting the petition for appeal to the original court of the second instance and such petition shall specify the reason for appeal. Article 471, Paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure also provides that “the Appellant must, within twenty days from the filing of the appeal, submit a statement of reasons to the original court of the second instance if the reasons for appeal were not provided in the petition for appeal; if the Appellant fails to do so, such appeal shall be dismissed by a ruling of the original court of the second instance without ordering the Appellant to correct such failure.” Since the principle of mandatory submission of the statement of reasons is adopted in such provision, the court of the third instance may review the appeal based on the asserted grounds, and the abuse of the right to appeal can be prevented. However, this is not provided in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the lawful elaboration of reasons for appeal. The Precedent T.S.T. No. 314 (Sup. Ct., 1982) states that “when appealing against the judgment of the court of the second instance in accordance with Article 468 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the judgment did not apply the law or applied the law wrongly, the Appellant shall specify concretely and provide the article or content of such law in a petition or statement of reasons for appeal. If it is a legal principle rather than codified laws, the purposes and the points of such principles should be identified. If it is a Judicial Yuan Interpretation or Precedent of the Supreme Court, the number and content of such Interpretation or Precedent shall be indicated. If appealing to the court of the third instance with the reasons provided for in the various items of Article 469 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellant should identify the fact(s) corresponding to the itemized reason(s) in the petition or statement of reasons for appeal. If the petition or statement of reasons for appeal does not conform to the aforesaid methods, such petition or statement shall not be considered to have concretely indicated the violation of law by the judgment of the court of the second instance, and thus the appeal shall not be deemed lawful.” Such Precedent engages in the literal interpretation of the application of the said articles and explains the methods to present the judgment’s violation of law. No additional limitation than what the law provides for was imposed. Thus, the people’s exercise of their rights to litigation is not hindered and such Precedent does not contradict Article 16 of the Constitution.