Part II ＞ Our Efforts and Transformation The Taiwan Constitutional Court held that the to become members of another ethnic group privacy due to the absence of a mechanism the limit of the four times set by the government; inadequate protection of personal data and for the independent oversight of personal data use of the NHI database would seem to be unconstitutional. The lack of well-defined regulations governing the external use of NHI data and the lack of regulations allowing a concerned party to request cessation of the use of their data violate the principle of legal reservation and the intent to protect personal data and privacy in the Constitution. These views are generally consistent with those of the NHRC. d. Case on the Indigenous Peoples Status for the Siraya People (TCC Judgment 111-Hsien-Pan-17, 2022) This case concerns the administrative suit filed by Uma Talavan and 112 other Sirayans after their request to be recognized as plains indigenous people was contested. In accordance with Article 2 of the Status Act for Indigenous Peoples (SAIP) and the interpretation of the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP), indigenous peoples marked as “civilized savages” in the household registration system under Japanese rule were given the opportunity to be registered as plains indigenous peoples four times: in 1956, 1957, 1959, and 1963. Part of the Sirayan people failed to register with the household registration authority by these deadlines, and consequently lost their status as indigenous people. The Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that Article 2, paragraph 2, SAIP, would seem to be unconstitutional and thus petitioned the Constitutional Court for a constitutional interpretation declaring the article unconstitutional. The plaintiff held that for indigenous people who belong to the same plains indigenous group 44 National Human Rights Commission 2022 Annual Report simply because they had failed to register within and, that family members who belong to the same plains indigenous group, simply because of the effect of whether or not they had applied to register within the limit set by the government— such that those who applied to register are plains indigenous peoples whilst those who had not applied to register are plains indigenous people who do not come within the regulations for indigenous status—leads to a bizarre outcome. This infringes the principle of equality set out in Article 7 of the Constitution. The NHRC attended the oral argument of the Taiwan Constitutional Court on June 28, 2022, to present its opinion based on international conventions and international human rights norms, holding that, based on the ICCPR and the UNDRIP, indigenous peoples are entitled to the right to self-identification and the right to self-determination. The two conditions to realize these rights are that a person self-identifies as an indigenous person and that State laws include procedures for immediate recognition of this selfidentification. Therefore, the additional conditions set in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the SAIP cannot be considered “reasonable and objective reasons” and therefore violate the rights set forth in the ICCPR. These conditions have deprived plains indigenous peoples of their rights to selfidentification and self-determination and been detrimental to their overall subsistence and wellbeing. The Taiwan Constitutional Court holds that the constitutional protection for indigenous peoples should cover all of Taiwan’s Austronesian peoples currently existing in Taiwan. Besides the mountain indigenous peoples and plains indigenous peoples already named as such