Lee and others vs. Legislative Yuan (Constitutional Case)

On January 30, 2024, a group of 13 petitioners—including two Indigenous people, three farmers, four children, two fishers, and two members of the civil society organization (Environmental Rights Foundation)—filed a petition with the Taiwan Constitutional Court. They argued that the Legislative Yuan failed to include short- and mid-term Greenhouse Gas emission reduction targets in the 2023 Climate Change Response Act and violate the Constitution. The petitioners made three arguments. First, the Climate Change Response Act fails to include explicit short- and mid-term GHG emission reduction goals, leaving Taiwan without a legally enforceable 2030 emissions target. Second, the Climate Change Response Act fails to specify guiding standards when delegating authority to the Ministry of Environment to promulgate phase-based GHG reduction targets. Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the Ministry of Environment fails to announce the phase 3 greenhouse gas reduction target, thereby undermining Taiwan’s 2050 net-zero objective. The petitioners claim that the inadequate legislative and administrative action has violated their constitutional right to life, right to health, right to work, right to housing, and property rights. Greenpeace Taiwan and numerous environmental groups support the petition. In a supplementary brief submitted in April 2024, the petitioners elaborated on the procedural issues. They claimed that the Constitutional Court should review the case, even if it does not meet the requirements of Article 59 of the Constitutional Litigation Act. It was contended that the petitioners in the present case lacked any meaningful legal remedies according to the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus should be deemed to have exhausted all available avenues of redress. Moreover, Article 59 of the Constitutional Litigation Act contains no exception clause, thereby leaving individuals without recourse in two critical situations: first, where a legal norm infringes upon fundamental rights immediately upon its promulgation and entry into force; and second, where the legislature’s failure to enact a legal norm results in the violation of fundamental rights. On this basis, the provision should be regarded as unconstitutional. In support of this position, reference was made to several decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court in which the Court admitted cases concerning infringements of fundamental rights arising immediately upon the promulgation and entry into force of legislation. In arguments submitted in May 2024, the petitioners further elaborated that Article 59 of the Constitutional Litigation Act violates the Constitution, drawing upon comparative references from Germany, South Korea, and France. On the other hand, Article 6 and Article 10 of the Climate Change Response Act (the contested provisions), together with the Ministry of Environment’s failure to establish the third-phase national GHG reduction target, were argued to constitute disparate impact discrimination (indirect discrimination), thereby infringing upon the child petitioners’ right to equality. The petitioners ask the Constitutional Court to declare: 1) the Climate Change Response unconstitutional for its failure to include a binding 2030 GHG reduction target. 2) The government to establish scientifically and legally robust pathways consistent with Taiwan’s “fair share” of global mitigation efforts. They argue that further delay would irreversibly endanger Taiwan’s 2050 net-zero goal, with especially grave consequences for younger and future generations. The case invites the Court to align with an emerging transnational jurisprudence recognizing a state duty to act decisively on climate change to protect fundamental rights.