Constitutional Court Amicus Curiae Application for Permission | First-Class Drug Trafficking Case

• On June 8, 2023, the Foundation applied to the Constitutional Court for permission to act as an amicus curiae. On August 11, 2023, the Constitutional Court rendered its judgment, and simultaneously ruled to deny the application on the grounds that "this Court has concluded the trial of the case, and there is no necessity for the applicant to further submit professional opinions or materials for this Court's reference."
• In June 2022, the Foundation published the "Constitutional Litigation Guidelines and Document Templates," explaining to the general public matters concerning the application for constitutional litigation in this case.

Main Case Number 107-Hsien-Er-331
Amicus Curiae Judicial Reform Foundation

Address: 7th Fl., No. 3, Lane 90, Sungkiang Rd., Chungshan Dist., Taipei City
Telephone: (02)2523-1178
Fax: (02)2531-9373
Representative: Huang Hsu-t'ien

Agent Attorney Lü Cheng-yen

Judicial Reform Foundation
Address: 7th Fl., No. 3, Lane 90, Sungkiang Rd., Chungshan Dist., Taipei City
Telephone: (02)2523-1178
Fax: (02)2531-9373

Regarding the adjudication of the consolidated cases including Hsien-Er No. 331 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "Present Case") by this honorable Court, this application is filed pursuant to Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act to request permission to act as an amicus curiae:

I. The operations of the Judicial Reform Foundation are professionally related to the Present Case, and it is hereby requested that this honorable Court rule to grant permission to act as an amicus curiae:

1. Article 20, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act stipulate: "Individuals, organs, or organizations other than the parties, if they consider themselves to have a nexus to the case being tried by the Constitutional Court, may apply to the Constitutional Court for a ruling granting permission to submit professionally valuable opinions or materials within a specified period for the reference of the Constitutional Court. The application in the preceding paragraph shall be made in writing stating the nexus." Furthermore, referring to the legislative intent of this provision: "Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 refer to legislative precedents concerning 'Amicus Curiae' in the United States... The nexus referred to in these two paragraphs is not limited to 'legal interest,' but includes, for example, emotional or professional nexus."
2. Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Trial Rules: "Individuals, organs, or organizations other than the parties, who consider themselves to have a nexus to a case tried by the Constitutional Court, may, within thirty days after the Constitutional Court publicly releases the application and the statement of defense, apply to the Constitutional Court for a ruling granting permission to submit professionally valuable opinions or materials regarding the applied case."
3. The Judicial Reform Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the "Foundation") is a professional organization that has long focused on the reform of criminal law and criminal procedure systems, drug criminal policy, and correctional institution systems. It has expressed professional opinions on related legal issues through academic seminars and public statements. As the Present Case involves major controversies in criminal drug policy, it should be recognized as having a professional nexus with the Foundation in accordance with the intent of Article 20 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, thus qualifying as an amicus curiae.
4. Moreover, as this honorable Court has already announced on May 9 of the Republic of China 112 (2023) that Case Hsien-Min No. 900465 is a consolidated case of the Present Case, the Foundation hereby applies for permission within the period prescribed in Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Trial Rules (refer to Constitutional Court Ruling Tai-Tzu No. 13254).

II. For the adjudication of the consolidated cases including Hsien-Er No. 331 of 2018 by this honorable Court, the Foundation supports the applicant's arguments and considers Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Hazard Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Disputed Provision") to be unconstitutional:

1. The Disputed Provision, namely Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Hazard Control Act, which stipulates: "Those who manufacture, transport, or traffic first-class drugs shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment..." infringes upon the people's right to life protected by Article 15 of the Constitution and personal freedom protected by Article 8, and contradicts the principle of equality under Article 7, the principle of proportionality under Article 23, and the principle of correspondence between crime and punishment, thereby rendering it unconstitutional (citing the normative constitutional review application filed on June 23, 2022 by Ni Yung-sheng, the applicant in the consolidated case 111-Hsien-Min-1360).
2. From the 52 cases accepted by this honorable Court in the Present Case thus far and cases dismissed without acceptance due to the same legal dispute, it is evident that the statutory penalty of the Disputed Provision is excessively heavy, resulting in a violation of the principle of correspondence between crime and punishment. This phenomenon likely universally exists in Taiwan's judicial practice and criminal sanctions. Therefore, aside from the consolidated cases in the Present Case, the manner of declaring the Disputed Provision unconstitutional should be approached with caution, and the possibility of extraordinary remedies for non-cause cases within the unconstitutional scope should be prudently accommodated to uphold the rights and interests of the people.

III. Therefore, this petition is respectfully submitted to this honorable Court for examination and approval, granting in accordance with the law a ruling permitting [the Foundation] to act as an amicus curiae, for which the deepest gratitude will be endlessly felt.

Respectfully submitted to
Constitutional Court