The provision of Paragraph 1, Article 20 of Enforcement Regulations for the Supervision and Guidance of Civil Association of All Levels as amended and promulgated on 15 June 2006 by the Ministry of Interior that “where a civil association is set a time limit for correction by the competent authority, the powers and authorities of its directors and supervisors shall cease” is contradictory to the Principle of Statutory Reservation of Article 23 of the Constitution, and infringes upon the Freedom of Association and Right to Work as protected by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and shall lose effect one year after the publication of this Interpretation at the latest.

       Article 14 of the Constitution regarding the Freedom of Association not only safeguards the people to freely choose the purpose of an association to form an association, to participate or not to participate the formation and related matters of the association, but also protects the association which is collectively formed by individual persons from being unlawfully restricted in terms of its formation, continuance and the promotion of associated activities (cf. J.Y. Interpretation No. 479). In addition, the Freedom of Occupation is necessary for the enrichment of people’s life and free development of personality. It is within the scope of protection of the Right to Work of Article 15 of the Constitution regardless of whether the nature of occupation is public interest or self interest, profit seeking or non-profit seeking (cf. J.Y. Interpretation No. 659). The election of directors and supervisors of a civil association and the exercise of their powers and duties involve the operation of an association, the realization of ideas of the association members, and the protection of the Freedom of Occupation of the directors and supervisors. Any restriction on the above people’s rights and freedoms shall be imposed by statute or an order issued by an administrative agency as expressly authorized by the legislative body so as not to contradict the Principle of Statutory Reservation of Article 23 of the Constitution (cf. J.Y. Interpretation No. 443).

       Paragraph 1, Article 58 of the Civil Association Act provides that “where a civil association violates a law or its constitution or encumbers public welfare, the competent authority may warn it, cancel its resolution, or stop whole or a part of its business, and order it to improve within a specified time limit; in case improvement is not made within the time limit or in serious circumstances, the following punishments may be executed: 1. Recall of the personnel. 2. Setting a time limit for correction. 3. Abolishment of the permit. 4. Disincorporation.” Among them, the “setting a time limit for correction” involves the restriction on the Freedom of Association and the directors’ and supervisors’ Right to Work. The procedure to be followed and the legal effect shall be regulated by statute, or by an order issued by an administrative agency as expressly authorized by the legislative body.

       Paragraph 1, Article 20 of Enforcement Regulations for the Supervision and Guidance of Civil Association of All Levels as amended and promulgated on 15 June 2006 by the Ministry of Interior specifies that “where a civil association is set a time limit for correction by the competent authority, the powers and authorities of its directors and supervisors shall cease.” Its effect restricts people’s Freedom of Association and directors’ and supervisors’ Right to Work, but without express statutory authorization. It is contradictory to the Principle of Statutory Reservation of Article 23 of the Constitution, and infringes upon the Freedom of Association and Right to Work as protected by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and shall lose effect one year after the publication of this Interpretation at the latest.

       With respect to the occupational association of the civil association, in light of historical background, the current relevant legal systems require mandatory memberships, but without conferring public powers on it. And relevant regulations take a stronger stance on its supervision. The competent authority had better take into account social evolution, and in its legislative policy prudentially adapt the functions that various occupational associations should have, and the corresponding strength of supervision to establish appropriate legal regulations. It is so indicated along with the Interpretation.