with cases in which excessive punishment is meted out.93 77. The purpose of the substitute fee (vouchers) stipulated in the Indigenous Peoples Employment Rights Protection Act is to ensure that winning bidders fulfill their obligations to avoid additional payment. The focus is on encouraging businesses above a certain scale that have won government procurement bids to employ indigenous people in accordance with the regulations so as to promote indigenous employment. The focus of this regulation should not be on substitute fees. The emphasis should be on creating jobs for indigenous peoples instead of substitute fees.94 The government should formulate a well- planned version of the legislation that aligns with the spirit of ICERD to be reviewed by the Legislative Yuan as soon as possible in order to adequately protect the employment rights of indigenous peoples. 78. Control Yuan investigation reports show that currently, there is still a discrepancy between the actual number of indigenous teachers employed in school systems and the ratio stipulated in the regulations. (1) The employment ratio of indigenous teachers in schools up to and including senior high schools is governed by Article 34, Paragraph 2 of the Education Act for Indigenous Peoples . For elementary schools, the ratio should not 93 Interpretation No. 810 (2021, Oct 8) issued by the Grand Justices states that “The provision in Paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Indigenous Peoples Employment Rights Protection Act stipulates that, ʻ...the vouchers mentioned in Paragraph 3 of Article 12 shall be calculated based on the monthly salary multiplied by the difference in the number of people.’ The calculation of substitute fees in a one-size-fits-all manner may inevitably lead to difficulties in enforcing substantive justice in individual cases. This is especially true when the calculated amount exceeds the procurement value. The fee could result in an excessive burden for the bidder, leading to substantial consequences that infringe upon individuals’ property rights. If the legislature fails to establish an appropriate adjustment mechanism, the above-mentioned provisions may impose restrictions on individuals’ property rights protected by Article 15 of the Constitution. Evidently, the provision does not align with the principle of proportionality as stated in Article 23 of the Constitution. The competent authority shall amend the provision in accordance with the spirit of this interpretation within two years starting from the publication date of this interpretation. Before the completion of the amendments, if competent authorities or courts encounter cases that are clearly excessive in punishment, they should handle said cases appropriately in accordance with the spirit of this 94 54 interpretation.” Dissenting opinion on Interpretation No.810 Employment Substitute Fees for Indigenous Peoples In Government Procurement . Retrieved from https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310991.