When the Sirayanapplied for the recognition as plain-land indigenous people in 2009, theCouncil of Indigenous Peoples, Executive Yuan (hereinafter the “CIP”) rejectedtheir application. When the case was remanded back to the administrative court,the presiding judge believed that Article 2 of the Status Act for IndigenousPeoples (hereinafter the “Status Act”) did not conform to the principle ofequality required by the Constitution, and thus petitioned for constitutionalinterpretation. The Constitutional Court rendered Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-Zi No.17 on October 28, 2022, holding that Article 2 of the Status Act, whichprovided that the term indigenous peoples only included mountain indigenouspeoples and plain-land indigenous peoples, was unconstitutional and shall be amendedwithin three years from the day of the judgment.

Currently,Article 2 of the Status Act provides that the term "indigenouspeople" includes native indigenous peoples of the mountain and plain-landregions, and plain-land indigenous peoples are defined as “permanent residentsof the plain-land administrative zone before the recovery of Taiwan, and censusregistration records show that the individual or an immediate kin of theindividual is of indigenous peoples descent, and the individual is registeredas a plain-land indigenous peoples in the village (town, city, district)administration office.” However, the evidence provided by the Sirayan in thepetition was household registration documents during Japanese rule. The CIPheld that, since the Sirayan did not register themselves as plain-landindigenous people during the open registration period designated by the TaiwanProvince Government, they do not meet the requirement set out in Subparagraph 2of Article 2 of the Status Act.

TheConstitutional Court holds that, Article 2 of the Status Act does not includeother Austronesian peoples in Taiwan whose languages, customs, traditions, andother cultural characteristics still survive and whose members still hold theirethnic identity, with objective historical records as proof. This omissionconflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution, which protects the freedom ofidentity of the indigenous peoples, and Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Article 10 ofthe Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China, which ismeant to protect the culture of the indigenous peoples. Therefore, all AustronesianTaiwanese peoples who meet the aforementioned elements may apply forrecognition as indigenous peoples, so that members of their tribes may legallyapproved as indigenous peoples in accordance with the law.

The ConstitutionCourt also requires that the competent authority shall amend the Status Act orpromulgate other special acts which expressly provide the legal elements forthe recognition of Taiwanese indigenous peoples status within three years. Ifsuch amendment or promulgation is not done within the designated period, otherindigenous peoples may apply to be recognized as indigenous peoples based onthe judgment of the Constitutional Court.

‍