Climate Justice
Climate litigation:
Constitutional litigation over national reduction targets
Case Story
Thirteen individuals from farmers, fishermen, indigenous communities, children, and NGOs—groups vulnerable to climate change—have jointly filed a petition with the Constitutional Court. They argue that while the current Climate Change Response Act sets a long-term net-zero emissions target for 2050, it lacks clear guidelines for setting short- and medium-term carbon reduction standards. Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment, the competent authority, has failed to set national reduction targets for the next phase as required by law. The plaintiffs claim that the lack of a clear and comprehensive path for gradual carbon reduction undermines the government’s ability to effectively protect its citizens, thereby infringing upon their fundamental rights to life, health, livelihood, and property. Therefore, they request the court to declare the relevant regulations unconstitutional and demand that the legislature amend the law within a specified period, prompting the government to set more stringent phased carbon reduction targets to truly safeguard the people’s rights.
Petitioner
The petitioners totaled 13, including 3 farmers (from Taichung and Hsinchu), 2 fishermen engaged in coastal fishing in Yunlin, 2 indigenous people (from Haocha Village in Pingtung and Laiji Village in Chiayi, respectively, both affected by Typhoon Morakot), 4 children, and 2 NGO workers, each representing the most vulnerable groups most likely to be negatively impacted by climate change.
Appointed attorney
Attorneys Huang Xinwen, Yan Shicheng, and Luo Fangchen
Where is the case currently progressing?
The Environmental Rights Association filed a petition with the Constitutional Court in January 2024. The case has been assigned to the justice, but the Constitutional Court has not yet decided whether to accept it.
What happened? Why was a constitutional litigation filed?
According to Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Climate Change Response Act (hereinafter referred to as the Climate Act), Taiwan aims for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 as its long-term goal. To achieve this long-term goal, Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the Climate Act also stipulates that the Ministry of Environment must set national phased control targets every five years (that is, set a short- to medium-term reduction target every five years). Following the phased control targets for the first phase (2016-2020) and the second phase (2021-2025), the third phase (2026-2030) will be set next.
According to Article 10, Paragraph 4 of the Climate Act, phased control targets should be set two years before the start of the next phase. However, the Ministry of Environment had not set a third phase target by the end of 2023 (Note: The Ministry of Environment published a draft on December 16, 2024, and issued a public notice on May 6, 2025, after filing this application). Moreover, although the Climate Act authorizes the Ministry of Environment to set targets, it does not provide sufficient instructions on “what basic standards should be used to calculate the phased control targets,” raising concerns about violating the principle of legal reservation.
Because the Climate Act does not explicitly define short- and medium-term phased control targets at the legal level, nor does it provide sufficient guiding principles to the Ministry of Environment (and even the authorized Ministry of Environment has delayed setting its own targets), it demonstrates that the Climate Act merely sets long-term net-zero targets without clearly defining a complete path “how to achieve them gradually.” At this juncture, questions arise about whether the state has fulfilled its obligation to protect its people, which contradicts the constitutional intent of protecting people’s rights to life, physical integrity and health, survival, housing, employment, property, and culture.
What demands do we have for the court?
- We request the court to declare Articles 10 and 6(1) of the Climate Law unconstitutional because they infringe upon the rights to life, physical integrity and health, survival, housing, employment, property, and culture.
- We request the court to declare Article 59(1) of the Constitutional Procedure Law unconstitutional because it infringes upon the right to litigation.
What are the main legal issues in this case?
The main legal controversy lies in whether Articles 6 and 10 of the Climate Change Law violate the principle of legal reservation.
Generally speaking, a state needs to govern according to law, and the hierarchy and density of its norms must be commensurate with the degree to which the action will affect people’s rights. That is to say, the greater the impact of a norm on the people, the more rigorous its formulation process must be, and the more necessary it is for legislators to provide sufficiently clear and explicit guidance to prevent arbitrary actions by government agencies.
However, the Ministry of Environment had not yet formulated the third phase of national emission reduction targets by the end of 2023 (originally scheduled for a 2025 announcement, which should have been done two years prior), indicating numerous oversights in its formulation process. Furthermore, the Climate Change Law does not provide sufficient guidance for setting emission reduction targets; therefore, we argue that the law violates the principle of legal reservation.
What goals do people hope to achieve by petitioning for a constitutional interpretation?
We believe that Articles 6 and 10 of the current Climate Change Act violate the principle of legal reservation. The Supreme Court should declare Articles 6 and 10 of the Climate Change Act unconstitutional and require legislators to amend the law within a certain period. Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment should revise its Phase III (2026-2030) control targets, using carbon budget data to calculate greenhouse gas reduction targets that adequately protect people’s rights. This would be a more rigorous approach.
At the same time, we hope that the Grand Justices will provide a constitutional interpretation of the application requirements under Article 59, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Procedure Code, and allow people to apply for a constitutional interpretation without exhausting all remedies under specific conditions (especially when the parties are unable to file a lawsuit legally in accordance with the procedure law and court practice), thereby providing more comprehensive protection for the people’s right to litigation.
