In the case where Wang Guang-Lu was found guilty of using a modified shotgun to shoot a Formosan serow and a Reeves's muntjac, both protected wildlife animals. The Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors Office filed an extraordinary appeal and the Supreme Court opened a court investigation in February 2017, extensively collected information. At the end, the judge suspended the trial and filed a petition for constitutional interpretation.

This was the first time Supreme Court judges filed a petition for constitutional interpretation. The panel of judges considered hunting to be one of the traditional cultural characteristics of the indigenous people. The Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act restricted indigenous people to hunt only with their own old-style guns rather than using the safer and modernized shotguns. The Wildlife Conservation Act restricted indigenous people to only hunt when the number of that animal had grown excessive, or for the purposes of academic research, education, or traditional cultural rituals. The aforementioned laws were not discussed and amended based on the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law, and were not in line with the ICCPR and ICESCR, which require prior consultations and discussions with the indigenous people as well as their consent. They also violated the concepts of sharing technology and creating win-win situations, as well as the intention of the additional provisions in the Constitution to affirm the multiculturalism, safeguard the indigenous tradition and promote its development. As such, the Justices of Constitutional Court of Judicial Yuan was requested to announce Item 1, Article 20 of that Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act and Article 18 and Item 1, Article 41 of the Wildlife Conservation Act to be unconstitutional because these provisions did not consider the special circumstances of the indigenous people.