| dc.description.abstract | At the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) broke out in mainland China and spread around the world. My country implemented epidemic prevention measures by the Communicable Disease Control Act and the Habeas Corpus Act. This article studies the possible restrictions on personal freedom when administrative agencies take anti-epidemic measures, whether the anti-epidemic measures are constitutional, and how the legal aspects should be dealt with to complete legal regulations and implement the protection of basic human rights. From the protection of basic human rights in Article 8, and Article 23 of the Constitution, it is necessary to determine whether the state′s actions infringe on the people′s basic rights. Furthermore, it is necessary to confirm whether the violated rights fall within the scope of protection of basic rights. Finally, it should be asked whether the infringement by the state is consistent with the prohibition of However, it is unconstitutional. By considering the legitimacy and legality of the restrictions on people′s basic rights, we can also ensure the stable operation of the rule of law. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 690 provides a constitutional interpretation of the restrictions on personal freedom during SARS, but compulsory quarantine must be standardized, specify a reasonable period, formulate implementation methods, and establish a mechanism for immediate relief and reasonable compensation for quarantined persons. During the COVID-19 period, with the spread of the epidemic, various epidemic prevention measures continue to be promoted. For example, in 2021, residents of the Fengshan Building were collectively forced to quarantine in hotels, and in 2022, pilots entering the country were forced to be quarantined in epidemic prevention hotels. Due to legal procedures, legal clarity, and the principles of proportionality must abide by the administrative principles of law and comply with the constitutional freedom guaranteed. | en_US |