Article 4. It's actually near the top. You probably missed it because you have to know the history of the constitution to know what Article 4 means. This is the text:
"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."
The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
The constitution says that those boundaries may only be changed by an act of the legislature. There has never been such an act.
> The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.
This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.
>which the ROC does not claim
ROC claims over all Chinese territory formally via inherent territory / universal succession when Qing abdication transferred sovereignty of all China to ROC, territories predefined as all China. Seperatistards tried to get court to formally define, i.e. redefine it as to not include mainland but court chickened out and tossed it down to political level and original state/claims (again, all china) persists. Cue additional articles of constitution which only tries to hack jurisdiction by creating free area / mainland area as separate political jurisdiction because seperatistards couldn't muster actual political power to constitutionally renounce claims, i.e. change sovereignty.
Hence ROC constitution still maintains full sovereignty claims over all China, while legally tries to spins restricting jurisdiction in few specific territories is life hack for independence, like sharia law applying to Taliban occupied villages translate to sovereignty claim (/s). When its explicitly clear the ROC constitution still fully dejure claims all territories including mainland areas, and will continue to claim, until formal referendum renounces dejure claims.
Until then, it's just revealed preference that TWners don't want dejure independence hard enough. And why pro independant narrative has to do deliberately retarded misreading of constitution / additional articles to support equally retarded / strained interpretation that jurisdiction claims = sovereignty claims. It doesn't. Feeling independent doesn't make one legally so.
Your insulting tone diminishes the validity of your argument to nothing. There's no point in talking to someone like you.
Tone has nothing to do with validity, policing tone is deflection for claim simply being wrong. TW constitutionally claims over mainland territory. There is no alternative legal reading despite how hard pro-independence tried (and failed) to create ambiguity at constitutional level. Hence reply more PSA for others against confidence passport bro "I read the constitution" but clearly do not understand it tier misinformation.
I'm not the only one who read the constitution, the constitutional court did, and in doing so directed that it doesn't constitute a claim to a specific territory, thus setting in stone the fact that the Taiwanese government makes no claim to PRC territory.
You may interpret the Taiwanese constitution however you please; since you aren't the Taiwanese judiciary nor legislative yuan, your interpretation is meaningless in terms of answering the question of whether Taiwan makes claims to PRC territory.