When deciding a case of 112 Sirayan people, including Uma Talavan, who petitioned for Plains Indigenous Peoples status that resulted in a dispute over the determination of their identity, the Taipei High Administrative Court concluded that Article 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Status Act for Indigenous Peoples was in effect. However, Uma and the remaining petitioners, who suspected the decision of being unconstitutional, requested a constitutional interpretation.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Commissioner Kao Yung-cheng and Upay Radiw Kanasaw were assigned to oversee the case, with Commissioner Kao also representing the NHRC as an interpretive authority during the Constitutional Court’s oral arguments. Commissioner Kao addressed the dispute regarding the identification of Plains Indigenous Peoples status by referencing international covenants and human rights regulations. He argued that according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous peoples should have the right to self-identification and self-determination. The additional requirements imposed by Article 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Status Act for Indigenous Peoples deprive the Plains Indigenous peoples of their right to self-determination, adversely affecting their survival and welfare. These requirements clearly lack “reasonable and objective standards,” thereby violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The National Human Rights Commission pointed out that, as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Taiwan should protect the rights of Indigenous peoples to actively realize their right to self-identification in accordance with Articles 1 and 27 of the Covenant, as well as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; which contains specific provisions that supplement the Covenant.
Accordingly, on October 28, 2022, the Constitutional Court handed down 2022 Constitutional Court judgment No. 17.