受有不利確定判決之人民等，當其以確定判決所適用之法律或命令有違憲之虞聲請大法官作《憲法》解釋，且大法官亦就該等法律或命令做成違憲宣告時，則聲請人得以大法官解釋之宣告作為再審或非常上訴之理由。又司法院大法官釋字第396號解釋闡明：所謂有權利必有救濟之法理，在「指明人民訴請法院救濟之法理為訴訟權保障之核心內容，不容剝奪（無漏洞之權利保護）」。對於不可歸責於當事人之法律狀態之變更，不應歸由人民承擔其不利益，已經由聲請釋憲並獲得有利解釋之人民，針對已無法循通常救濟程序獲得救濟機會之同一具體個案爭議，得經由再審之訴之訴訟程序謀求權利救濟。而行政法院於再審程序中若未正視該聲請案件所適用之規範，之所以遭大法官宣告違憲之意義，卻仍以其他理由駁回再審之訴時，則大法官對聲請人做成有利解釋宣告之實質保障意義將無法確保。

When an individual has questions on the constitutionality of the statute or regulation relied upon by the court of last resort in its final judgment and makes petition for interpretation of the Constitution and therefore receives interpretation of unconstitutionality, he shall be entitled to file for a retrial or an extraordinary appeal on the basis of said interpretation. Furthermore, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 396 also provides that rights are accompanied with relief. That is, the people cannot be deprived of the right to request relief from the court which lies at the heart of the safeguarding of the right to litigation (comprehensive remedy). Since applicants do not have the power to ensure the amendment of the law, they should not be obliged to bear the consequences. In case an interpretation, given in response to a petition, is favorable to the petitioner, said interpretation shall be applicable to the petitioner's case for which the petition was made; therefore, the present petitioner may seek for relief pursuant to statutory procedure. If the administrative courts haven't consider the reasoning of declaring the law unconstitutional in the determination, and still deny the retrial for other reasons, the effect of the favorable interpretation will be incomplete.