Note: 

• This summary constitutes no part of the Judgment but is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court only for the readers’ reference.
• Original paragraph numbers that the summarized texts correspond to are put into lenticular brackets after each paragraph. 
• In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.

Headnotes

    By stipulating fines that are equivalent to either one or three times the amount of the supplementary insurance premiums that should have been withheld on behalf of the National Health Insurance Administration, without affording any room for discretion or a mitigating mechanism, Article 85 of the National Health Insurance Act (NHI Act) violates the principle of proportionality, thereby infringing the right to property under Article 15 of the Constitution. 

Background Note

    Under Article 31, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the NHI Act, beneficiary individuals under the NHI system—that is, insured persons and their dependents— must pay supplementary insurance premiums on salary incomes received from sources other than their group insurance applicants to the NHI Administration. The obligation to withhold and remit the premiums falls upon the “premium withholders” (person responsible for withholding premiums), namely, the tax withholders defined under Article 89, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Income Tax Act, such as organizations and enterprises that disburse salaries. Under Article 85 of the NHI Act (hereinafter the “disputed provision”), failure to withhold and remit supplementary insurance premiums within the deadline will result in a fine equivalent to the amount that should have been withheld, and triple the amount for exceeding the extended due date ^[1]. 

    The petitioner was a person in charge of a construction company who had failed to withhold and remit supplementary insurance premiums from the salaries of three workers within the extended deadline. Consequently, the petitioner was fined NT$ 93,000 in 2019—three times the amount of the required remittance. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal and subsequent litigation, the petitioner’s case was ultimately dismissed by the Taipei High Administrative Court. The petitioner filed for constitutional review in 2022, arguing that the relevant NHI Act provisions violated the principle of proportionality by imposing fines equivalent to either one or three times the amount of the supplementary insurance premiums without considering different circumstances.

    Following TCC Judgment 114-Hsien-Pan-1 (2025), this decision was rendered by a bench of five Justices, excluding the three Justices who declined to participate in the deliberations. 

Summary of the Judgment 

Holding

1. The disputed provision uses the amount of supplementary insurance premiums subject to withholding as the sole basis for calculating the fine, and imposes a fine equal to a fixed multiple of that amount. This could lead to draconian fines in individual cases, which make the fines disproportionate to the underlying violations. To that extent, the disputed provision violates the principle of proportionality and people’s right to property under Articles 23 and 15 of the Constitution. Relevant authorities should amend the disputed provision in accordance with this Judgment within two years of its announcement. Until the amendment is complete, relevant authorities and courts shall make decisions in accordance with this Judgment if the application of the disputed provision appears to be excessive in certain cases. 
2. The rest of the petition is dismissed. 

Reasoning

1. The purpose of the disputed provision is to reduce waste of National Health Insurance (NHI) resources, increase NHI revenue, and maintain the fairness in collecting insurance premiums, which are appropriate public interests.【19】

    Article 31 of the NHI Act provides that the insured person who receives earnings other than their regular salary, including earnings outside those from the group insurance applicant, shall pay supplementary insurance premiums. Article 2, Subparagraph 3 of the NHI Act requires such premiums to be withheld and remitted at source by the premium withholder when paying to the insured person. The disputed provision further lays out the fines imposed on the premium withholders for failing to withhold and remit. 

    Withholding insurance premiums at source, rather than having the insured person file and remit them individually, not only significantly reduces the manpower and material costs required to collect premiums but also conserves NHI resources. Furthermore, this approach ensures accurate reporting and payment of premiums, preventing under-withholding or omissions, which helps strengthen the financial resources of the NHI and promote fairness in shouldering insurance premiums. The disputed provision imposes pecuniary fines on the premium withholders who fail to withhold and remit, to ensure the fulfillment of their obligations. The disputed provision has an appropriate purpose.【22】 

2. The disputed provision uses the amount of unpaid supplementary insurance premiums as the sole basis for determining the amount of fine imposed for failing to withhold, and imposes a fine at a fixed multiple of that amount. This may result in fines that are draconian in certain cases; to that extent, it does not comply with the principle of proportionality in imposing fines.【23】

    The disputed provision had already considered factors of the violation, such as whether the violator has made up for the remittance before the extended deadline, or the extent of damage that the concerned amount has posed to the stability of NHI financial resources. However, the seriousness of the violation may vary due to factors such as the violator’s liability, the length of delay, and the circumstances of the make-up payment. The disputed provision disregards all such factors that are sufficient to reflect the severity of the violation. In special cases, this approach may be unduly harsh. For example, where the premiums required to be withheld is large but other circumstances of the violation are of minor severity, the premium withholder obligated to remit—even if the party is merely acting as an agent for the insured in collecting insurance premiums—would still be subject to a fine calculated as a fixed multiple of that amount, without any discretionary leeway, reasonable upper limit, or other appropriate adjustment mechanisms.【25】

    In summary, the disputed provision uses the amount of unpaid supplementary insurance premiums as the sole basis for determining the amount of fine, and imposes a fine at a fixed multiple of that amount without considering the varying degrees of severity in the circumstances of specific cases, nor providing appropriate mechanisms to prevent draconian results. To this extent, the disputed provision does not conform with the requirement of proportionality in fining, therefore violates the principle of proportionality and people’s right to property under Articles 23 and 15 of the Constitution. Relevant authorities should amend the disputed provision in accordance with this Judgment within two years of its announcement. Until the amendment is complete, relevant authorities and courts shall make decisions in accordance with this Judgment if the application of the disputed provision appears to be excessive in certain cases. In the meantime, when relevant authorities and courts apply the disputed provision to individual cases, they shall take into account the circumstances of violation and impose an appropriate fine if the amount appears to be excessive. They shall not be bound by the fixed statutory multiplier set out in the disputed provision.【26】
 

Note:

[1] Translator’s note: There is a conflict of meaning between this article’s original text and its official English translation. To avoid possible confusion, the content in this case news follows the original text.