The Judicial Yuan held oral arguments for cases 107-Xian-Er-Zi-54 (filed by WuChen Chun-tao and LiuChen Chun-mei) and 107-Xian-Er-Zi-347 (filed by Wu Jo-shao) to interpret the constitutionality of Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Indigenous Peoples Status Act. Commissioner Upay Kanasaw represented the National Human Rights Commission to offer the opinions on whether said article was unconstitutional.
Commissioner Upay Kanasaw stated the following:
(1) The acquisition of status is based on lineage; it is not based on registration or granted by the state. However, to promote the transmission of Indigenous languages and culture and due to the limited nature of state resources, legislators allow for preferential treatment within legislative discretion. Since the specific purpose of preferential treatment is to compensate for the outcomes resulting from past and present discrimination against certain disadvantaged groups, particular attention must be given to it.
(2) In determining Indigenous status, a comparison among the Indigenous Peoples Status Act, Nationality Act, and Mongolian and Tibetan Ethnic Identity Certification Act reveals that only the Indigenous Peoples Status Act adopts both lineage and identity principles. Indigenous status indicates not only lineage but also entails rights and obligations. The purpose of Indigenous status is to establish a sense of cultural belonging, thereby creating connections with traditional culture.
(3) Therefore, the provision stipulated in Article 4, Subparagraph 2 of the Indigenous Peoples Status Act is not unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the Constitutional Court made Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-4 on April 1, 2022.