In the event a public functionary’s property right under the public law is infringed, remedies may be sought through the procedures of administrative appeal or litigation. The application for the mutual assistance fund, according to the law, upon a public functionary’s retirement is his/her exercise of property right under the public law. Any dispute related thereto should be resolved through the abovementioned procedures. Interpretations Nos.187, 201 and 266 shall be supplemented by this Interpretation.

　　　 The protection of the people’s property rights is clearly provided in Article 15 of the Constitution. Such rights should not be compromised even if the person is appointed as a public functionary and the public-law relationship of dutiful services for the state is created. The property rights of a public functionary, whether based on public law or private law, shall be protected by the state and legal remedies should be available in the event of infringement. Therefore, public functionaries may enjoy stable lives and dedicate themselves to public service. Thus, the purpose of Article 83 of the Constitution to safeguard the property rights of public functionaries may be achieved.

　　　 The Measures Governing the Fringe Benefits and Mutual Assistance for Civil and Teaching Personnel of the Central Government, as promulgated by the Executive Yuan, and the similar regulations made by other agencies are intended for the administrative purpose of stabilizing the lives of public functionaries. Government funds are also injected into these funds. Therefore, these funds are of the nature of public law. The judicial system, as it is now, is divided into civil litigations and administrative litigations. Since a retiring public functionary’s application for the mutual assistance fund according to the abovementioned law is the exercise of a public-law property right, the rejection by the relevant authority shall be an infringement of property rights as protected by the Constitution. Therefore, administrative appeal and litigations should be allowed for remedies. Nevertheless, the Administrative Court Precedent 53-Pan-No.229 stated that “an administrative disposition imposed upon a public functionary is strictly within the scope of public administration, and is not analogous to the cases in which the people’s right is infringed upon by the government agencies’ dispositions; therefore, administrative appeals are not allowed.” Since the Precedent does not distinguish the types of dispositions, and administrative appeals are rejected across the board, such precedent is inconsistent with the above principle and shall no longer be applied. The Judicial Yuan has rendered several interpretations on this point. Interpretations Nos.187, 201 and 266 shall be supplemented by this Interpretation.