| 英文摘要 |
Interpretation No. 317 opens the procedure for judges to petition for an interpretation of the Constitution if they believe that the applicable law is in conflict with the constitution. After that, as of March 31, 2024, according to the statistics in this article, the cases in which judges petitioned for constitutional interpretation (including cases in which also the people petitioned for the interpretation of the constitution and the cases were consolidated for trial). There were 67 cases. Among them, there were 32 cases of agreement, in which the law was declared unconstitutional. There were 10 cases of partial agreement and partial disagreement, and 25 cases of disagreement.
Among the 25 cases of disagreement, there were two cases where the views were subsequently changed and the law was declared unconstitutional. Although the main text of the judgment did not declare the law to be unconstitutional, it did limit the conditions or scope of application of the provisions as with“restrictive constitutional interpretation”or“warning interpretation”that requires relevant agencies to review and improve the law, are also indirect recognition the law does have the appearance of unconstitutionality and controversy.
Cases involving highly political legal infringement of property rights and doubtful unconstitutionality, the ordinary judges who petitioned for the interpretation of the constitution showed their image of upholding the“rightness of human rights”, but the justice did not consider it was unconstitutional and showed its political correctness. The contrast between“human rights correctness”and“political correctness”is surprising! |
