Go to Content Area :::

Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) Logo

Home Sitemap 中文版
   

Decisions

Home > Decisions > Interpretations (before 2022)
:::
:::
  • Interpretation
  • No.434【Under Translation】
  • Date
  • 1997/07/25
  • Issue
    • Does the absence of any provision in the Public Functionaries Insurance Act for the return of insurance premiums or retirement benefits for employees leaving for reasons other than retirement, violate Article 15 of the Constitution for the protection of the people’s property right?
  • Holding
    •        Public Functionaries Insurance is a social welfare system based on the theory that the country should provide benefits to government employees for childbirth, retirement, sickness, death and other reasons. All enrolled, remunerated personnel and public service personnel of legally established government institutions are considered as the insured. The insured should pay premiums pursuant to Article 8, Paragraph 1, and Article 9 of the Public Functionaries Insurance Act. The insuring institution, in accordance with Article 3 of the same Act, provides childbirth, sickness, personal injury, disability, retirement, death, dependent death and burial service benefits, with the last three items transferred to the National Health Insurance Program after the enactment of the National Health Insurance Act.  The premium to be paid under the Public Functionaries Insurance Act is shared between the government and the insured according to a certain ratio, to provide the funding of the insurance benefits paid out by the insuring institution. Such premium not only provides the funding sources of benefit payout of the individual insured, but also shares, collectively, the liability for payout of the other individuals insured. The fact that there is no provision for the return of premiums already paid does not violate the Constitution.   However, with regard to that portion of the premium paid by the insured relating to retirement insurance, the insuring institution, according to the provision of the reserve rules mandated by the Ministry of Finance, should allocate a certain ratio as retirement benefit reserve, the principal and interest of which resemble the cumulative deposits of all the insured. Article 16, Paragraph 1, of the Public Functionaries Insurance Act provides for retirement benefits only to regular retirees, but not to other departing employees. Such neglect contravenes the purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution for the protection of the people*s property right and should be reviewed and amended forthwith.
  • Reasoning
    •        Public Functionaries Insurance is a social welfare system based on the theory that the country should provide benefits to government employees for childbirth, retirement, sickness, death and other reasons. According to Articles 2 and 6 of Public Functionaries Insurance Act, all enrolled, remunerated personnel and public service personnel are considered as the insured. The insured, according to Article 8, Paragraph 1, and Article 9 of the same Act, shall contribute his/her portion of the insurance premium, with the balance contributed by the government as a subsidy. The insuring institution, shall, according to Article 3 of the same Act, provide childbirth, sickness, personal injury, disability, retirement, death and dependent death and burial service benefits. When the National Health Insurance Act was implemented on August 9, 1994, the last three items were transferred to the National Health Insurance Program. The insurance premium provided under the Public Functionaries Insurance Act is shared between the insured and the government under a certain ratio to provide for the funding basis of benefits payout by the insuring institution. Once paid, the premium joins the flow of funds in the insurance operation of the insurer and serves as the source of funds for benefits payout once an insurance peril occurs. Except as otherwise provided, the insured has no right to ask for a refund. Thus the fact that the Act does not provide for the refund of paid-in premium is not unconstitutional.   However, among the abovementioned insurance benefits, those of retirement and death resemble the fixed amount benefit of the whole-life protection type. Thus, the portion of premium paid by the insured relating to retirement insurance, according to the provision of the reserve rules mandated via the Ministry of Finance Executive Order No. (49) Tai-Fin-Mon-Fa 01463 dated February 19, 1960, the insuring institution shall allocate a certain ratio (14.9﹪in February 1960, 10﹪in January 1962, and back to 14.9﹪in January 1968; See the Ministry of Finance, Bureau of Monetary Affairs, letter Tai-Yun-Bureau (2) No. 86219495 dated July 19, 1997) as retirement benefits reserve. The principal and interest of such reserve resemble the cumulative deposits of all the insured and are not items of assets of the insuring institution. Thus the departing insured, after payment of a certain number of years of premium, earns his/her right to benefits accrual. Article 16, Paragraph 1, of the Public Functionaries Insurance Act provides only retirement benefits to regular retirees and not to other departing employees. Such neglect contravenes the purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution for the protection of the people*s property right and should be reviewed and amended forthwith. The condition and amount of such benefits should be left to the legislature to decide.  
      
    • *Translated by Professor S. M. Yu.
Back Top