This case combined 39 requests for constitutional interpretation involving 34 filed by citizens, including Ko Ssu-hai, Lu Yin-tzu, and Wang Ssu-han, along with five filed by judges of the Criminal Court Room 1 of the Supreme Court, as well as Criminal Court of the Taiwan Taichung District Court, Taiwan Taitung District Court, and Taiwan Nantou District Court. These requests sought interpretation concerning the constitutionality of pre- and post-sentencing-related compulsory labor as stipulated in Article 90 of the Criminal Code; Article 3, Paragraph 1 and Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Rehabilitative Measures for Burglar and Fence Criminals Act; and Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the Organized Crime Prevention Act. The National Human Rights Commission was invited by the Judicial Yuan to participate in oral arguments on October 12, 2021, with commissioner Kao Yung-cheng appearing as the friend of the court.
Kao Yung-cheng stated that according to past investigations performed by the Control Yuan, educational compulsory labor does not achieve the goals of helping the sentenced individuals return to society or facilitating deterrence to any particular degree. Instead, it extends incarceration and becomes a form of prolonged imprisonment. Educational compulsory labor as currently implemented may still involve cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment, violating the norms established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other standards.
Accordingly, the Judicial Yuan issued Interpretation No. 812 on December 10, 2021.