1. Constitutional Framework of Taiwan

Taiwan operates under the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) (1947, amended repeatedly). The key features of constitutional review include:

(a) Judicial Review Body

• Previously: Council of Grand Justices
• Now: Constitutional Court (Judicial Yuan)

(b) Core Function

• Interpret Constitution
• Review constitutionality of laws and regulations
• Resolve constitutional disputes
• Protect fundamental rights

2. Nature of “Grand Justices Interpretation”

Unlike typical courts, Taiwan’s system issues:

• “Interpretations” instead of judgments
• These interpretations are binding and have constitutional force

👉 They serve the same function as:

• Supreme Court rulings (USA/India)
• Constitutional Court decisions (Germany/Korea)

3. Constitutional Review Methodology

Taiwan’s Constitutional Court applies:

(1) Proportionality Principle

Borrowed from German constitutional law:

• Suitability
• Necessity
• Balancing

(2) Strict Scrutiny for Fundamental Rights

• Especially speech, equality, and liberty rights

(3) Democratic Safeguard Function

• Protects electoral fairness and political rights

4. Landmark Case Laws (Grand Justices Interpretations)

1. Interpretation No. 499

• One of the most important constitutional review cases.
• Dealt with constitutional amendment procedures.
• Court held that amendments must follow constitutional identity principles.

👉 Established:

• Constitutional supremacy over political actors
• Limits on unconstitutional constitutional amendments

2. Interpretation No. 384

• Concerned criminal procedure and detention rights.
• Court emphasized:
  • Due process protections
  • Judicial oversight of detention

👉 Strengthened liberty and procedural fairness.

3. Interpretation No. 585

• Related to freedom of expression and assembly.
• Court struck down excessive restrictions on public assembly.

👉 Established proportionality in regulating protest rights.

4. Interpretation No. 603

• Concerned police fingerprint collection of citizens.
• Court ruled mandatory fingerprinting unconstitutional.

👉 Recognized:

• Informational privacy
• Bodily integrity
• Data protection principles

5. Interpretation No. 748

• Landmark LGBTQ+ rights case.
• Court held that banning same-sex marriage violated equality and dignity.

👉 Key principles:

• Equality under Constitution
• Right to marriage
• Human dignity

6. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 443

• Concerned restrictions on freedom of speech.
• Court ruled that speech restrictions must pass strict proportionality.

👉 Strengthened constitutional free speech protections.

7. Interpretation No. 709

• Concerned forced eviction in urban redevelopment.
• Court ruled that relocation procedures lacked due process.

👉 Established:

• Property rights protection
• Fair compensation requirement
• Procedural safeguards

5. Key Constitutional Principles Developed

(1) Human Dignity

• Central value in constitutional interpretation
• Basis for equality and liberty rights

(2) Proportionality Review

Applied strictly in rights limitation cases:

• Suitability
• Necessity
• Balancing

(3) Informational Privacy

• Strong protection against state surveillance
• Developed through fingerprinting and data cases

(4) Democratic Constitutionalism

• Court protects:
  • Elections
  • Legislative integrity
  • Constitutional amendment limits

(5) Judicial Activism with Institutional Balance

• Court is activist in rights protection
• But cautious in political questions

6. Role of the Constitutional Court in Taiwan

(a) Rights Protector

• Ensures enforcement of civil liberties

(b) Constitutional Arbiter

• Resolves disputes between branches of government

(c) Democratic Guardian

• Protects electoral fairness and constitutional order

7. Comparison with Other Systems

• Germany: Strong influence on proportionality doctrine
• India: Similar fundamental rights structure but less codified proportionality
• USA: More deferential in many cases
• Taiwan: Hybrid model with strong rights protection + proportionality review

8. Criticism

(1) Institutional Dependency

• Reliance on interpretation system may limit predictability.

(2) Political Sensitivity

• Some rulings face political resistance.

(3) Enforcement Challenges

• Implementation depends on executive compliance.

9. Conclusion

The Taiwanese system of Grand Justices Interpretation represents one of the most sophisticated constitutional review models in Asia. It combines:

• Strong rights protection
• German-style proportionality
• Progressive judicial interpretation
• Democratic constitutional safeguards

Through landmark interpretations such as No. 748 (same-sex marriage) and No. 603 (privacy and fingerprinting), Taiwan’s Constitutional Court has established itself as a powerful guardian of constitutional democracy.