eID Chip ID Card Litigation
Who Protects Citizens' Privacy?
The Ministry of the Interior originally scheduled the nationwide, mandatory replacement of traditional identification cards with the New eID (Digital Identity Card) starting in October 2020. Lacking clear statutory authorization, the Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF), the Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR), and other civil society groups jointly launched a social movement. Recruiting nearly 60 plaintiffs, they filed a preventive injunctive lawsuit with the Taipei High Administrative Court to safeguard citizens' rights to informational self-determination and privacy.
When the State Seeks to "Digitize"
Every Citizen's Identity
The Ministry of the Interior (MOI) originally planned to fully replace national identification cards with the New eID (hereinafter referred to as the "eID") starting in October 2020. To oppose the MOI's mandatory nationwide rollout without clear statutory authorization, the Judicial Reform Foundation and the Taiwan Association for Human Rights jointly launched a social movement. On July 31, 2020, they held a press conference announcing that they would join nearly 60 plaintiffs recruited from across Taiwan to file a collective lawsuit with the Taipei High Administrative Court. The lawsuit sought to prohibit the MOI—pursuant to Article 59, Paragraph 2 of the Household Registration Act and Article 15 of the Regulations for the Comprehensive Replacement of National Identification Cards issued on March 19, 2020—from publicly announcing the expiration date of old-style identification cards before the completion of the comprehensive replacement process.
Advocacy work for the eID project was primarily led by the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, while the legal litigation was undertaken by JRF Executive Committee member Attorney Lin Yü-t'eng, who served as the convener of the pro bono legal team, with administrative and communication support provided by the Judicial Reform Foundation.
What is the eID?
The eID upgrades traditional paper ID cards into digital identification cards embedded with a microchip. On the surface, it offers citizens greater convenience in over-the-counter and online services; however, it simultaneously collects, stores, processes, and utilizes personal data in a digital format, generating a "digital footprint" with every use. Its profound impact on citizens' rights to informational self-determination and privacy goes far beyond a mere "change in ID card format."
The MOI's original timeline for the nationwide rollout of the eID, pushed forward without explicit statutory authorization.
The number of plaintiffs recruited nationwide by JRF and TAHR to jointly file the class-action lawsuit.
New Taipei City, Penghu County, and Hsinchu City successively withdrew from the eID pilot program in December 2020.
In January 2021, the Executive Yuan resolved to suspend the issuance of the eID pending special legislation and social consensus.
What Are the Core Problems with
the Mandatory eID Rollout?
1. Lack of Explicit Statutory Authorization
By upgrading traditional ID cards into chip-embedded digital identification cards, the eID fundamentally alters the existing identification system—far exceeding a simple "change in ID card format." Nevertheless, the MOI advanced this institutional reform, which heavily impacts fundamental rights, based merely on the broad, general authorization of Article 52, Paragraph 1 of the Household Registration Act: "The format of the national identification card shall be determined by the Ministry of the Interior."
The Taipei High Administrative Court explicitly stated in its judgment: "The provisions concerning chip-embedded ID cards in the 2020 management regulations clearly exceed the scope of authorization under Article 52, Paragraph 1 of the Household Registration Act, which states that 'The format of the national identification card shall be determined by the Ministry of the Interior.'" The issuance of the eID must be explicitly prescribed by law.
2. A Complete Retreat in Privacy and Informational Self-Determination
The eID collects, stores, processes, and utilizes personal data in a digital format. The "digital footprints" generated each time a citizen uses it constitute an intrusion by the state into the private spheres of individuals' lives and undermine their autonomous control and decision-making regarding personal data, severely restricting rights such as informational self-determination and privacy.
"The eID imposes upon individuals a digital identification function capable of generating massive amounts of 'digital footprints,' placing individuals in a position where they can be subjected to detailed profiling, fundamentally altering the appearance of the existing identification system..."
——Taipei High Administrative Court 109-Su-912 Judgment3. Inadequate Safeguards and a Weak Foundation of Mutual Trust
On March 18, 2021, the Control Yuan issued an investigation report (110-Nei-Tiao-0010), pointing out that the MOI had already paid significant social costs, including an eroded foundation of mutual trust, during the process of promoting the eID replacement. It called for a thorough review of the legal framework and social participation mechanisms concerning national identity cards.
- Failure to enact a specialized data protection act and lack of clear regulations on the scope of use.
- Information asymmetry in pilot counties and cities, leaving concerns regarding personal data security unresolved.
- Lack of comprehensive social communication and participation mechanisms.
Defending the Democratic Safeguards of the Identification System
Through Strategic Litigation
Working shoulder-to-shoulder with TAHR and other civil society groups, JRF adopted a four-pronged strategy combining "Control Yuan petitions, judicial litigation, legislative research, and social advocacy" to comprehensively address the controversies surrounding the eID policy:
Control Yuan Petitions
On September 18, 2019, JRF and TAHR jointly submitted a petition to the Control Yuan regarding the procedural and privacy protection controversies triggered by the MOI's promotion of the eID. On March 18, 2021, the Control Yuan issued an investigation report (110-Nei-Tiao-0010), concluding that the MOI had incurred heavy social costs—such as a lack of mutual trust—during the eID rollout.
Judicial Litigation
In February 2020, a pro bono legal team was established, convened by Attorney Lin Yü-t'eng. On August 5, 2020, an administrative complaint was filed with the Taipei High Administrative Court, initiating a preventive injunctive lawsuit to request the prohibition of the MOI from announcing the expiration date of old ID cards. On May 11, 2023, the Taipei High Administrative Court delivered its judgment (109-Su-912). Although the lawsuit was dismissed on procedural grounds because the Executive Yuan had already decided to suspend the policy, the judgment explicitly pointed out the illegality of the mandatory eID replacement policy, successfully achieving its phased objective.
Legislative Research
In April 2020, to thoroughly study the details of specialized legislation, the pro bono legal team invited Chung Hung-pin, former researcher at the Crime Prevention Research Center of the Judicial Officials Training Academy, to translate the German Identity Card and Electronic Identification Act, and asked Shao Yun-chung, assistant research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica, to assist in proofreading. The translation was open-sourced for public reference.
Social Advocacy and Amicus Curiae
Beginning in 2020, JRF intensively held press conferences, issued statements, and organized seminars. In 2022, it submitted an amicus curiae brief for the National Health Insurance Database constitutional litigation case (Hui-Tai-Tzu No. 13769), extending the discourse on privacy, informational self-determination, and digital human rights accumulated through the eID litigation into broader digital governance issues.
eID Chip ID Card Litigation—
Chronology
All dates are presented in the Common Era.
JRF and TAHR jointly submitted a petition to the Control Yuan regarding the procedural and privacy protection controversies sparked by the MOI's promotion of the eID.
Convened by Attorney Lin Yü-t'eng, a pro bono legal team was formed to formulate litigation strategies.
Translated by Chung Hung-pin with proofreading assistance from Shao Yun-chung, serving as an important foundation for legislative research and open-sourced for public reference.
The press conference titled "Forced eID Replacement Sparks Public Outrage, Executive and Legislative Branches Must Respond to Public Demands" was held, demanding that administrative and legislative authorities directly address public grievances.
The press conference titled "Reject Digital ID Cards! Civil Groups Launch Class-Action Lawsuit Against the MOI" was held, announcing the recruitment of nearly 60 plaintiffs to jointly file a preventive injunctive lawsuit.
The pro bono legal team filed an administrative complaint with the Taipei High Administrative Court, formally initiating the preventive injunctive lawsuit.
"Chip ID Card Lawsuit Holds First Hearing! Privacy Concerns Unresolved, MOI Rushes Trial Program for Next January," where civil groups questioned the legitimacy of conducting trials concurrently with ongoing litigation.
"Zero MOI Representatives Attend Chip ID Card Lawsuit, Ignoring Public Legal Remedies," as no representatives from the MOI appeared in court, sparking public backlash.
Through the efforts of the legal team, TAHR, Open Culture Foundation, and other civil groups, three counties and cities successively withdrew from the eID pilot program.
The press conference titled "Treating Personal Data as a Bounty? Hsinchu Citizens Refuse to Be Digital ID Card Guinea Pigs" was held to oppose using citizens' personal data as a policy experiment.
"Mandatory Replacement Policy Unchanged, Digital ID Card Third Court Hearing," with civil groups continuing to assert the necessity of clear statutory authorization under specialized laws.
JRF and civil groups issued a joint statement demanding that the government provide a complete and detailed explanation of the concrete content of "comprehensive legal institutionalization."
The Executive Yuan resolved at its 3736th meeting to suspend the issuance of the eID until specialized legislation is enacted and social consensus is achieved—marking the first concrete outcome of the litigation and advocacy efforts.
"Digital ID Card Project Not Abolished, Citizens Return to Court for the Fourth Time to Protect Information Privacy," arguing that judicial review on the merits remained necessary despite the suspension.
"Unclear Enabling Act for eID, Photo Management Regulations Already Sent to the Legislative Yuan," alerting society to procedural flaws in the promotion of the system.
The Control Yuan issued investigation report (110-Nei-Tiao-0010), pointing out that the MOI had incurred significant social costs—such as a lack of mutual trust—during the promotion of the eID, and calling for a thorough review of the legal framework and social participation mechanisms surrounding national identity cards.
Submitted a motion for leave to submit an amicus curiae brief to the Constitutional Court regarding the National Health Insurance Database constitutional litigation case (Hui-Tai-Tzu No. 13769).
The Constitutional Court issued a ruling granting JRF permission to serve as an amicus curiae.
Submitted an amicus curiae brief in the National Health Insurance Database constitutional litigation case, expanding the arguments accumulated in the eID litigation into broader digital governance issues.
Provided supplementary explanations regarding informational self-determination, privacy protection, and the constitutional boundaries of state personal data collection.
Organized the "Digital Governance and Human Rights Protection Seminar | The Right to Refuse Being 'Digitized': Reviewing the Constitutional Court's Judgment on the National Health Insurance Database Case."
Hosted the "Digital Governance Salon and Capacity-Building Workshop," covering themes including tech-assisted investigation, digital intermediaries, and the eID.
The Taipei High Administrative Court held oral argument proceedings, where the legal team presented comprehensive arguments concerning the legal authorization and privacy impacts of the eID.
"eID Preventive Injunctive Lawsuit Nears Judgment, Hoping the Court Acts as Taiwan's Democratic Safeguard for the Identification System," expressing hope that the court would squarely address the issue of illegality in its judgment.
109-Su-912 Judgment: Although this preventive injunctive lawsuit was dismissed for failing to meet procedural requirements, the court explicitly pointed out in its judgment the illegality of the mandatory eID replacement policy and its infringement upon fundamental rights.
JRF and civil groups issued a joint statement expressing that although this case did not become a successful precedent for preventive injunctive lawsuits, it substantially and concretely pointed out the policy's illegality, thus achieving its phased objective.
Further Reading and Related Documents
- [Joint Statement] eID Judgment Delivered, Litigation Has Achieved Its Phased Objective (2023-05-12)
- [Commentary] Latest Strategic Litigation Report: Taiwan eID Card Judgment (2023-05-11)
- [Event] Volunteer Lawyer Recruitment | Digital Governance Salon and Capacity-Building Workshop #TechInvestigation #DigitalIntermediary #eID (2023-01-05)
- [Event] Seminar | The Right to Refuse Being "Digitized": Reviewing the Constitutional Court's Judgment on the National Health Insurance Database Case (2022-08-20)
- [Commentary] Amicus Curiae Brief to the Constitutional Court | National Health Insurance Database Constitutional Litigation Case (2022-04-26)
- [Book] German Identity Card and Electronic Identification Act (2020-06-11)
- [Control Yuan] Control Yuan Investigation Report 110-Nei-Tiao-0010 (2021-03-18)
- [External Report] Reflecting on Taiwan's Distance from a "Digital State" Through the Aborted Digital ID Card Policy (The Reporter)
Safeguard Privacy for Everyone
in the Digital Age
Although the eID litigation has achieved its phased objective, privacy and human rights challenges in the digital age persist. Support JRF as we continue to advance a human-centric, legally grounded digital governance.
Support JRF File a Complaint
2023
Volunteer Lawyer Recruitment | Digital Rule of Law Salon & Empowerment Workshop #TechInvestigation #DigitalIntermediation #eID
Taiwan lacks a privacy protection principle and regulatory mechanism governed by a single statute akin to the European…
2022
Seminar | The Right to Refuse Being "Digitalized": Evaluating the Constitutional Court Judgment on the National Health Insurance Database Case | Digital Rule of Law and Human Rights Protection Seminar
On August 12, the Constitutional Court announced Constitutional Judgment No. 13 of 2022 regarding the National Health…