Molishaka Tribe Loses Case to Revoke Recognition of 3 Related Tribes, Supreme Administrative Court Orders Retrial
In a lawsuit concerning the Wanli Hydropower Project in Hualien, the Molishaka tribe sought to revoke the Wanrong Township Office's recognition of three other tribes as related tribes. The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the first instance judgment, which had dismissed the case, and ordered a retrial, emphasizing the importance of standing to sue in such matters.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 7, 2026 at 19:44
- 🔍 Collected: May 7, 2026 at 20:02 (17 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 7, 2026 at 20:41 (39 min after Collected)
Central News Agency
(Central News Agency reporter Lin Chang-shun, Taipei 7th) In the Hualien Wanli Hydropower Project case, the Wanrong Township Office recognized Molishaka and three other tribes as related tribes, granting them the right to consultation and consent. The Molishaka tribe filed a lawsuit requesting the revocation of the recognition of the other three tribes as related tribes, but the first instance court dismissed the case. The Supreme Administrative Court today overturned the original judgment and ordered a retrial.
Taipower Company plans to proceed with the "Wanli Hydropower Project" in Hualien County. To carry out the indigenous peoples' consultation and consent procedure, the Hualien County Wanrong Township Office initially recognized the Molishaka tribe and the Dajiahan tribe as related tribes. Later, the Malibaxi tribe and the Mataian tribe were added, and the four tribes were invited to hold tribal meetings to exercise their right to consent.
The Molishaka tribe filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the Wanrong Township Office's recognition of the Malibaxi tribe, Mataian tribe, and Dajiahan tribe as related tribes, which was made in early January 109 (2020). The case was heard by the Taipei High Administrative Court.
The Taipei High Administrative Court held that the Molishaka tribe's right to consultation and consent for the development project was not infringed upon by the recognition of other tribes as related tribes, and therefore the Molishaka tribe lacked standing to sue, dismissing the revocation lawsuit. The Molishaka tribe appealed the decision.
The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that the disposition made by the competent authority regarding the recognition of related tribes directly affects the exercise of consultation and consent rights among related tribes. For those who disagree with the recognition of other tribes as related tribes, they are legal stakeholders protected by the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law's right to consultation and consent, and thus have standing to file an administrative lawsuit. Members of related tribes are the subjects who concretely exercise the right to consultation and consent, and they are also legal stakeholders with the qualification to file an administrative lawsuit regarding the disposition recognizing other tribes as related tribes.
The Supreme Administrative Court held that the original judgment's finding that the Molishaka tribe lacked litigation capacity violated laws and affected the outcome of the judgment, thus the Molishaka tribe's appeal was justified. As the facts and evidence of this case are still unclear and require further investigation, the Supreme Administrative Court could not render a judgment on its own, and therefore overturned the original judgment and remanded the case for a lawful retrial. (Editor: Chang Ming-kun) 1150507
Choose to stand with facts, every sponsorship you make is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency's "First-hand News" APP to stay updated with the latest news.
The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or utilized without authorization.
(Central News Agency reporter Lin Chang-shun, Taipei 7th) In the Hualien Wanli Hydropower Project case, the Wanrong Township Office recognized Molishaka and three other tribes as related tribes, granting them the right to consultation and consent. The Molishaka tribe filed a lawsuit requesting the revocation of the recognition of the other three tribes as related tribes, but the first instance court dismissed the case. The Supreme Administrative Court today overturned the original judgment and ordered a retrial.
Taipower Company plans to proceed with the "Wanli Hydropower Project" in Hualien County. To carry out the indigenous peoples' consultation and consent procedure, the Hualien County Wanrong Township Office initially recognized the Molishaka tribe and the Dajiahan tribe as related tribes. Later, the Malibaxi tribe and the Mataian tribe were added, and the four tribes were invited to hold tribal meetings to exercise their right to consent.
The Molishaka tribe filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the Wanrong Township Office's recognition of the Malibaxi tribe, Mataian tribe, and Dajiahan tribe as related tribes, which was made in early January 109 (2020). The case was heard by the Taipei High Administrative Court.
The Taipei High Administrative Court held that the Molishaka tribe's right to consultation and consent for the development project was not infringed upon by the recognition of other tribes as related tribes, and therefore the Molishaka tribe lacked standing to sue, dismissing the revocation lawsuit. The Molishaka tribe appealed the decision.
The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that the disposition made by the competent authority regarding the recognition of related tribes directly affects the exercise of consultation and consent rights among related tribes. For those who disagree with the recognition of other tribes as related tribes, they are legal stakeholders protected by the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law's right to consultation and consent, and thus have standing to file an administrative lawsuit. Members of related tribes are the subjects who concretely exercise the right to consultation and consent, and they are also legal stakeholders with the qualification to file an administrative lawsuit regarding the disposition recognizing other tribes as related tribes.
The Supreme Administrative Court held that the original judgment's finding that the Molishaka tribe lacked litigation capacity violated laws and affected the outcome of the judgment, thus the Molishaka tribe's appeal was justified. As the facts and evidence of this case are still unclear and require further investigation, the Supreme Administrative Court could not render a judgment on its own, and therefore overturned the original judgment and remanded the case for a lawful retrial. (Editor: Chang Ming-kun) 1150507
Choose to stand with facts, every sponsorship you make is a force to protect press freedom.
Download the Central News Agency's "First-hand News" APP to stay updated with the latest news.
The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or utilized without authorization.