Does anybody else think that the ARC requirement in Article 40 of the 入出國及移民法施行細則 may be a case of administrative overreach? Article 23 of the 入出國及移民法 says that to apply for permanent residence, you must “合法連續居留七年.” But what does 居留 mean? Article 3 of the same Law defines 居留 as “指在臺灣地區居住期間超過六個月。” Note that the definition says nothing about holding an ARC. Moreover, the definition of 停留 in the same Article states that 停留 is “臺灣地區居住期間未逾六個月。” So for both 停留 and 居留, the criteria is living 居住 in Taiwan for more than or less than a certain number of days. If for example you held an ARC but lived in Taiwan for less than 180 days, you would meet the criteria for 停留 but not that for 居留.
However, Article 40 of the 入出國及移民法施行細則 narrows the definition of 居留 considerably by defining 合法連續居留 as 持用外僑居留證之居住期間. The effect of this definition is to exclude a foreigner who first held a Visitor Visa for say two years and then an ARC for five years (assuming that all this time is consecutive). Does the Ministry of the Interior have the right to narrow the scope of the Law by redefining terms that have already been clearly defined in the Law? According to Article 158 of the 行政程序法, a regulation does not have force if it contradicts the Constitution or law or if it restricts or abrogates the people