Summary of facts and the Petitioner’s Statements
The petitioner, Shih, Yao-Lin (hereinafter “the Petitioner”), originally served as a clerk in the Secretariat of the Northern Regional Branch of the National Property Administration, Ministry of Finance (hereinafter “the NPA”). On December 6, 2017, while conducting an on-site inspection of state-owned housing in Da’an District, Taipei City, under official assignment, the Petitioner fell down the steps after stepping backward and turning, thereby causing injuries, including a contusion on the right foot and a closed nondisplaced fracture of the right fifth metatarsal. In October 2018, pursuant to Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1(6) of the Regulations for the Issuance of Consolation Payment for Civil Servants in Case of Accidental Injury or Death in the Execution of Duties (hereinafter “the Regulations”), as amended and promulgated on June 27, 2018, the Petitioner applied for a consolation payment of NT$10,000 for the injury. The NPA’s Northern Regional Branch denied the application, arguing that an“accident”under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations does not include incidents caused by the negligence of the person concerned, and that accidents must arise from a sudden external hazard. As such, if the incident is attributable to the party’s own negligence, and the incident does not arise from a sudden and external hazard, it shall not constitute an “accidental event,” and the application shall therefore be denied. The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, and upon further filing of an administrative lawsuit with the Taiwan Taipei District Court, the case was dismissed by Judgment 109-Jian-Zi-105. The appeal was accordingly likewise dismissed by the Taipei High Administrative Court Judgement 109-Jian-Shang-Zi-51 (hereinafter “the Final Judgment”), which thereby became final. The Petitioner contended that the provisions applied by the Final Judgment—namely, Article 21, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Civil Servants Protection Act (hereinafter “the Protection Act”), and Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulations— infringed upon his property rights [guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution], thereby raising a constitutional doubt, and petitioned for a constitutional interpretation.
The gist of the Petitioner’s claim was as follows: Article 21, Paragraph 2 (First Sentence) and Paragraph 3 of the Protection Act, along with Point 2 of the general explanation of the legislative amendments, and Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations, along with Point 3 of its legislative rationale, all stipulate that “incidents caused by the negligence or illness of the person concerned, and not arising from sudden external hazards, are not considered accidental events.” Nevertheless, the Regulations were enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of employees and to compensate for damages from occupational injuries not covered by civil service insurance. Applying the above legislative rationale too narrowly to the circumstances of the injury excessively restricts the requirements and infringes upon the applicant’s property rights guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution, thereby violating the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution.
II. Grounds for Granting Review and the Court’s Proceedings
According to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (hereinafter “the CCPA”), as amended and enforced on January 4, 2022, any case that had already been pending but not yet concluded before the amendment shall, unless otherwise provided by the Act, be governed by the amended provisions. However, whether a case is admissible shall be determined in accordance with the provisions prior to the amendment. This is explicitly provided by Article 90, Paragraph 1 of the CCPA.
1. Admissible Portion
With respect to the Petitioner’s claim challenging Article 21, Paragraph 2, First Part, of the Protection Act and Article 3, Paragraph 1, of the Regulations, the petition was filed on December 24, 2020, before the amendment of the CCPA took effect. Its admissibility shall therefore be determined under the former Constitutional Court Interpretation Act (hereinafter “CCIA”). Upon review, the petition conforms to the requirements prescribed under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Adjudication Act, and is thus admissible.
2. Inadmissible Portion
The Petitioner also alleged that Article 21, Paragraph 3, of the Protection Act, which provides: “The regulations governing the issuance of consolation payments mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be prescribed by the Examination Yuan jointly with the Executive Yuan;” together with Article 2 of the Regulations, which provides: “Where personnel as prescribed in Article 3 and Article 102 of this Act suffer accidental injury, disability, or death in the execution of duties, the issuance of consolation payment shall be governed by this Regulation; provided that where otherwise provided by other laws, such provisions shall govern;” and Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Regulations, stipulating that “(t)he issuance of consolation payment pursuant to this Regulation shall be limited to cases in which the injury, disability, or death has a proximate causal connection with the accident occurring in the execution of duties;”are unconstitutional. However, the applicant has not specifically explained in what respect those provisions objectively conflict with the Constitution. This fails to meet the requirements of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the CCIA, and the petition shall therefore be dismissed as inadmissible.
III. Issues for Review
1. Article 21, Paragraph 2, First Sentence of the Civil Servants Protection Act provides: “In case a civil servant sustains an accidental injury, disability, or death in the execution of duties, a consolation payment shall be issued.” (hereinafter “Disputed Provision I”)
2. Article 3, Paragraph 1, of the Regulations for the Issuance of Consolation Payment for Civil Servants in Case of Accidental Injury or Death in the Execution of Duties, as amended and promulgated on June 27, 2018, stipulating that “(t)he term ‘accident’ in these Regulations refers to sudden external hazardous incidents not arising from illness.” (hereinafter “Disputed Provision II”) (Note: This provision was further amended on April 16, 2021, to read: “The term ‘accident’ in these Regulations refers to sudden external incidents not arising from illness.” This subsequent amendment, however, does not fall within the scope of review in the present case.)
IV. Legal Grounds for the Holdings
1. Occupational Safety Protection for Civil Servants as an Integral Part of the Guarantee of the People’s Right to Hold Public Office guaranteed in Art. 18 of the Constitution
Article 18 of the Constitution provides that the people shall have the right to hold public office. Its purpose is to ensure that the people are entitled by law to serve in public positions, and to enjoy the corresponding guarantees of status, remuneration, pensions, and other rights. The legal relationship between civil servants and the State is governed by public law. The State has the obligation to provide civil servants with remuneration and pensions to secure their livelihood, while civil servants owe duties of service and loyalty to the State (see J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 483, 575, 605, and 658). Furthermore, the State’s duty of care toward civil servants should not be limited to the payment of remuneration and pensions. Instead, it should also extend to providing appropriate care for injuries or illnesses sustained in the execution of duties, so that civil servants may devote themselves to public service without worries. Such appropriate care constitutes occupational safety protection for civil servants, and falls within the scope of the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to hold public office under Article 18 of the Constitution.
The specific content of the State’s duty to provide appropriate care for injuries or illnesses incurred in the performance of official duties shall be prescribed by the legislature through statutory law. When the legislature authorizes an administrative agency to issue supplementary regulations, the purpose, content, and scope of such delegation must be clearly defined, and the regulations may neither contravene the enabling statute nor impose additional restrictions on the rights of civil servants beyond those provided by law.
2. Legislative Evolution of the Regulations Governing Consolation Payments
In accordance with the Ministry of Civil Service in its Letter Bu-Tui-Wu-1105392229 issued on November 12, 2021 replying to the Secretary-General of the Judicial Yuan (hereinafter Reply Letter from the Ministry of Civil Service), the system of consolation payments originated in 1993. At that time, it was observed that civil servants and teaching personnel frequently encountered violence or hazardous incidents while performing duties such as maintaining public order, escorting cash shipments, demolishing illegal constructions, or executing crackdowns. At that time, the new civil service retirement and compensation system had not yet been implemented. Ordinary civil servants who became disabled, retired, or deceased in the line of duty could only receive limited retirement and compensation benefits. Furthermore, non-regular employees were not covered by relevant retirement and compensation laws, and their rights and interests were accordingly less protected. As a result, many government agencies purchased accident insurance for their employees performing official duties, which led to enormous expenditures on insurance premiums for government authorities at all level and schools while providing little actual protection due to low payout rates. To ensure the principles of economy, fairness, and comprehensive care, the former Central Personnel Administration, Executive Yuan (now the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration, Executive Yuan), in consultation with relevant agencies, concluded that having each agency purchase accident insurance for its employees was not the optimal approach. Instead, it was deemed more in line with aforementioned principles of economy, fairness, and comprehensive care for the government to allocate budgetary funds and provide relief payments on a case-by-case basis to employees who suffer disability or death in the performance of their official duties. Accordingly, the ‘Implementation Guidelines for the Provision of Relief Payments to Public Servants and Teachers Who Suffer Disability or Death Due to Hazardous Incidents in the Performance of Their Duties’ (hereinafter referred to as the “Relief Payment Implementation Guidelines”) were established as the basis for administration. [Translator’s note: Based on this rationale, the Guidelines for the Issuance of Consolation Payments to Civil Servants and Teaching Personnel Who Became Disabled or Died in Hazardous Incidents in the Execution of Duties were enacted.]
On September 7, 1994, the Executive Yuan and the Examination Yuan jointly promulgated the aforementioned Relief Payment Implementation Guidelines, which provided for consolation payments to civil servants and teaching personnel who, while undertaking dangerous missions or engaging in hazardous duties, became disabled or died. The Guidelines were amended on September 25, 1997, and renamed the Guidelines for the Issuance of Consolation Payments to Civil Servants and Teaching Personnel Who Became Disabled or Died in the Execution of Dangerous Missions or Hazardous Duties, which were later abolished on July 4, 2001. Prior to that, the Taipei City Government in its Letter 80-Fu Ren-Si-Zi-80037788 of June 6, 1991 had already promulgated Guidelines for the Issuance of Consolation Payments to Taipei City Employees Who Sustained Injuries or Died in the Execution of Duties. Under these Guidelines, consolation payments would be provided to Taipei City employees suffering injury or death notably in cases of: (1) hazardous incidents occurring in the execution of duties; (2) encountering danger or illness while on official assignments; (3) participating in official training or drills; (4) accidents occurring in the workplace; and (5) accidents occurring while commuting to and from work to stabilize their lives (see Article 1 and Article 3 of the Guidelines for reference). These Taipei City Guidelines provided more generous conditions than the aforementioned Guidelines jointly issued by the Executive Yuan and the Examination Yuan. To enhance the protection of civil servants’rights and interests, the Executive Yuan and the Examination Yuan jointly promulgated the Regulations for the Issuance of Consolation Payments to Civil Servants and Teaching Personnel Who Sustained Injuries or Died in the Execution of Duties on July 2, 2001, which expanded the scope of payments to include “injuries sustained in the execution of duties.” Consequently, the Taipei City Guidelines were abolished by Taipei City Government Letter Fu-Ren-Si-Zi- 09202614101 on February 21, 2003.
As a result, when the Protection Act was amended on May 28, 2003, Article 21, Paragraph 2, First Sentence was added to provide: “In case a civil servant sustains injury, disability, or death in the execution of duties, a consolation payment shall be issued.” In addition, Paragraph 3 was added to provide: “The scope of the preceding paragraph and the regulations governing the issuance of consolation payments shall be prescribed by the Examination Yuan jointly with the Executive Yuan.” Accordingly, on December 9, 2003, the Examination Yuan and the Executive Yuan jointly promulgated the Regulations for the Issuance of Consolation Payments to Civil Servants for Injuries or Death Sustained in the Execution of Duties, which came into force on January 1, 2004 (while the aforementioned Regulations for the Issuance of Consolation Payments to Civil Servants and Teaching Personnel Who Sustained Injuries or Died in the Execution of Duties were repealed on January 27, 2004). Regarding the issuance of consolation payments, Article 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the 2003 Regulations provided as follows: Paragraph 1: “The term ‘injury, disability, or death sustained in the execution of duties’ refers to injury, disability, or death due to any of the following circumstances: (1) an accident occurring in the execution of duties; (2) encountering danger while on official assignment; (3) an accident occurring in the workplace.” Paragraph 2: “The term ‘an accident occurring in the execution of duties’ in Subparagraph 1 means an accident occurring while performing duties; the term ‘encountering danger while on official assignment’ in Subparagraph 2 means that a civil servant, having been dispatched by the agency or school to carry out a specific mission, encounters danger, with the timeframe calculated from departure until return to the office or residence upon completion of the assignment; the term ‘an accident occurring in the workplace’ in Subparagraph 3 means an accident occurring in the place of work during official working hours or designated work time while performing official duties.” The Regulations were subsequently amended multiple times. On June 27, 2018, the Regulations were renamed the Regulations for the Issuance of Consolation Payment for Civil Servants in Case of Accidental Injury or Death in the Execution of Duties.
Based on the above explanations, one can accordingly understand how the system of consolation payments was established: Though initially agencies allocated budgetary funds to provide additional accident insurance coverage for their employees as a substitute for occupational injury compensation, it later evolved into a system of direct consolation payments funded by the government through budgetary allocations. Regardless of the government’s method of payment, its essential purpose has always been to provide care for civil servants who sustain accidental injuries, disabilities, or death in the execution of duties, thereby having the nature of occupational injury compensation. Thus, the Regulations governing consolation payments must conform to the legislative intent of the law conferring authority, namely Article 19 of the Protection Act, which mandates occupational safety protection for civil servants. The grounds for issuing consolation payments must also comply with the requirements of Disputed Provision I.
In summary, consolation payments are statutory benefits provided to civil servants or their survivors because a civil servant suffered injuries, disabilities, or death in the execution of duties. As a form of the State’s duty to care for public servants and while they are termed “consolation payments,” they essentially carry the nature of occupational injury compensation.
3. The term “accident” in Disputed Provision I is not limited solely to incidents arising from external sources of danger, and therefore does not contravene the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to hold public office under Article 18 of the Constitution.
According to the first part of Article 19 of the Protection Act, which provides that“the safety of civil servants in the execution of their duties shall be protected,” the provision explicitly stipulates that the State bears an obligation to ensure the safety of civil servants in the performance of their official duties. Furthermore, Disputed Provision I provids that “in case when a civil servant sustains an accidental injury, disability, or death in the execution of duties, a consolation payment shall be issued,” thereby expressly requiring compensation for civil servants who suffer injury, disability, or death in the course of performing official duties. This legislative intent is further evidenced by Article 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, as amended and promulgated on July 3, 2013, which provides that “this Act is enacted for the purpose of preventing occupational accidents and protecting the safety and health of workers; where any other law provides otherwise, such provisions shall prevail.” According to the legislative rationale for the 2013 amendment, the Act was formulated in accordance with the spirit of Article 7, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to ensure the right of everyone to the enjoyment of safe and healthy working conditions. The scope of protection under the Act was thus expanded beyond “employees” to include “self-employed persons” and “trainees at vocational training institutions.” Accordingly, the phrase “to protect the safety and health of laborers” was revised to “to protect the safety and health of workers,” and it was clarified that the Regulations on the Safety and Health Protection of Civil Servants, enacted pursuant to Article 19 of the Civil Servants Protection Act, constitute special provisions concerning the safety and health of civil servants and therefore shall take precedence (see 8th Term, 2nd Session, 11th Meeting of Legislative Yuan Bill-Related Documents Yuan-Tzung-961, Government Proposal No. 13447, p. 6). Hence, occupational safety protection for civil servants formulates an integral part of the State’s overall legal framework for safeguarding the safety and health of all workers, leaving no room for doubt. In addition, the Regulations on the Safety and Health Protection of Civil Servants explicitly provide that, when a civil servant suffers harm to life, body, or health in the execution of duties, the competent agency shall take the following measures: promptly issue a consolation payment in accordance with the regulations; assist with matters relating to leave, insurance, retirement, and compensation; assist with referrals to professional organizations for psychological counseling or medical care; and take other necessary measures (see Article 23, Subparagraphs 4 to 7 of given Regulations). These provisions further confirm the aforementioned conclusion.
Accordingly, Disputed Provision I constitutes a safeguard of the State for civil servants who suffer accidents in the performance of their official duties and hence represents a concrete implementation of the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to hold public office Given the intent of the State to protect people’s right to hold public office, the term “accident” in the phrase “a public officers performing official duties who suffers an accident” should not be limited solely to incidents arising from external hazards. It should also encompass incidents caused by the civil servant’s own negligence. Therefore, Disputed Provision I does not violate Article 18 of the Constitution guaranteeing the people’s right to hold public office.
Although the legislative rationale for Disputed Provision I refers to Article 131, Paragraph 2 of the Insurance Act and its practical application, stating that “accident” refers to a sudden external hazardous event and that incidents caused by the person’s negligence or illness do not constitute accidents (see the 9th Term, 3rd Session of the Legislative Yuan Bill-Related Documents Yuan-Tzung-1549, Government Proposal No. 15897) (Footnote), i.e. “accident” is limited to external dangers. However, referring to Article 131, Paragraph 2 of the Insurance Act, “accidental injury” denotes an injury resulting from a sudden and external event not caused by illness. The legislative intent and judicial practice underlying this provision aim to distinguish illness from accidental injury arising from a sudden incident, and do not indicate any intention to exclude incidents caused by the party’s own negligence. Although the foregoing legislative rationale may be subject to debate, it does not fall within the scope of issues to be adjudicated in this case. This is hereby noted.
4. The portion of Disputed Provision II concerning “external hazardous incidents” imposes restrictions not found in the law and contravenes the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to hold public office under Article 18 of the Constitution.
As previously explained, the term “accident” in Disputed Provision I—namely, “in case a civil servant sustains an accident… in the execution of duties” is not confined to incidents caused solely by external sources of danger, but also encompasses those resulting from the civil servant’s own negligence. However, Disputed Provision II stipulates that “the term ‘accident’ in these Regulations refers to sudden external hazardous incidents not arising from illness.” Through defining “accident” in this way, Disputed Provision II makes “external hazard” a necessary element of a sudden external incident, thereby limiting consolation payments only to incidents caused by external sources of danger and excluding incidents resulting from a civil servant’s own negligence. Such a limitation constitutes an additional restriction not found in the enabling statute (i.e., Disputed Provision I) and is in conflict with the legislative intent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Accordingly, it contravenes the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to hold public office under Article 18 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Civil Service, in its aforementioned reply letter, stated that since the implementation of the Regulations for the Issuance of Consolation Payment for Civil Servants in Case of Accidental Injury or Death in the Execution of Duties, various government agencies and schools have repeatedly proposed that the requirement for establishing an “accident” should be relaxed. In practice, when a party suffers an accidental event caused by a sudden external force (such as a sudden gust of wind), it is often difficult for the individual to provide evidence, and the verification of such circumstances by agencies or schools also gives rise to practical difficulties. Moreover, the occurrence of accidental injuries frequently involves an element of personal negligence in addition to sudden external hazardous incidents, making it difficult to clearly determine causation. To better safeguard the rights and interests of civil servants, the Regulations were therefore amended and promulgated on April 16, 2021, expressly removing the requirement of “hazard” from the definition of “accident” under Article 3, Paragraph 1. Under the revised provision, an “accident” is no longer restricted to those involving external hazardous factors, and the mere fact of personal negligence shall not preclude the issuance of a consolation payment. This clarification is hereby noted.
V. Conclusion
In sum, Disputed Provision represents a form of state protection for civil servants who suffer accidents in the execution of duties and thus concretizes the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to hold public office, it does not contradict Article 18 of the Constitution guaranteeing people’s right to hold public office. Given the intent of the State to protect the people’s right to hold public office, the term “accident” is not limited solely to incidents caused by external hazards, but also includes incidents resulting from the civil servant’s own negligence . However, the portion of Disputed Provision II regarding “external hazardous incidents,” imposes a limitation not found in the law, and thus contravenes the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to hold public office under Article 18 of the Constitution.
Moreover, the Petitioner may seek relief by filing for a retrial pursuant to law. In addition, the Petitioner’s affiliated agency may, in accordance with the reasoning of this Judgment, revoke the original administrative decision and reconsider the Petitioner’s application for the consolation payment in question as appropriate.
VI. Additional Indication
Consolation payments are statutory benefits granted to civil servants, or to their survivors, for injuries, disabilities, or deaths sustained in the execution of duties. They constitute a component of the State’s duty of care toward civil servants and bear the nature of occupational injury compensation. Although designated as “consolation payments,” such benefits are, in substance, statutory compensations provided by the State for victims of occupational accidents. The use of the term “consolation” may misleadingly suggest that such payments are acts of state benevolence or grace. Therefore, it may be necessary to give an appropriate name for the system to better reflect its true legal nature.