In cases where, prior to the date that the Judicial Yuan delivers an interpretation (“the subject interpretation”) in response to a particular petition (“the subject case”), an individual other than the petitioner of the subject case has also filed a petition to challenge the constitutionality of the same law or regulation while such petition having satisfied the statutory requirements by the resolution of the Council of Grand Justices but not consolidated in a joinder, the holding of J. Y. Interpretation No. 177 that “an interpretation given by this Yuan in response to a petition shall also be applicable with respect to the legal action of the petitioner, for which the original petition was made” shall be applied equally to make the subject interpretation applicable in the aforesaid individual’s case.　J. Y. Interpretation No. 193 is hereby supplemented.

　　With regard to the effect on individual cases by the Grand Justices’ interpretations of the Constitution, J. Y. Interpretation No. 177 states: “An interpretation given by this Yuan in response to a petition shall also be applicable with respect to the legal action of the petitioner, for which the original petition was made.”　Its purpose is to allow the petitioner to seek relief through statutory procedure based on the favorable outcome of the interpretation of Constitution.　To elaborate further on this point, J. Y. Interpretation No. 193 adds that, if the constitutionality of the same law or regulation should be called into question with several cases by the same petitioner, provided that these petitions are filed respectively and sequentially prior to the delivery of the interpretation, for the one not consolidated in a joinder by this Yuan but is conformed with the statutory requirements, it can also apply J. Y. Interpretation No. 177 so as to be covered by the effect of the subject interpretation.　However, J. Y. Interpretation No. 193 does not provide a clear guidance on whether J.Y. Interpretation No. 177 will be similarly applicable to those cases in the situation where petitions are legally filed by different petitioners on the same ground that the same law or regulation contradicts the Constitution but are not consolidated.　Therefore, it is necessary that J. Y. Interpretation No. 193 be supplemented.

　　Pursuant to the Principle of Equality, there should not be discriminatory treatment toward all petitioners whose petitions were filed before the delivery of the interpretation and have satisfied the statutory requirements.　Besides, in order to carry through the objective of the J. Y. Interpretations No. 177 and No. 193 so that petitioner(s) may seek relief in accordance with the statutory procedure, it is held that in cases where, prior to the date that the Judicial Yuan delivers a particular interpretation, an individual other than the petitioner of the subject case has also filed a petition to challenge the constitutionality of the same law or regulation while such petition having satisfied the statutory requirements by the resolution of the Council of Grand Justices but not consolidated in a joinder, the holding of J. Y. Interpretation No. 177 that “an interpretation given by this Yuan in response to a petition shall also be applicable with respect to the legal action of the petitioner, for which the original petition was made” shall be applied equally to make the subject interpretation applicable in such cases.　J. Y. Interpretation No. 193 is hereby supplemented.

　　Furthermore, as Article 273-II of the Administrative Litigation Act materializes the essence of J. Y. Interpretations No. 177 and No. 185, it is therefore followed that J. Y. Interpretation No. 193 would also apply to cover the cases of a single petitioner filing a number of separate petitions to challenge the constitutionality of the same law or regulation.　That being the case, this Interpretation (No. 193) shall equally extend to allow for the action of retrial for those other individuals who have petitioned upon the same law or regulation interpreted in the subject case prior to the delivery of the subject interpretation, provided that each case has satisfied all statutory requirements.