The right of a worker to enroll in the labor insurance program and all of his public law rights arising therefrom are guaranteed by the Constitution. All matters in connection with the commencement, suspension, and termination of the effect of the insurance and the performance of the insurance payment are matters relating to the rights and obligations of workers arising out of the insurance relations and are of great concern to the interest of workers. Thus, any restriction on the workers’ right must be prescribed by law, and the legislative purpose and approach must be consistent with Article 23 of the Constitution. If the administrative authorities are empowered by law to issue rules and ordinances as supplements thereto, such rules and ordinances must be consistent with the legislative intention and must not go beyond the scope of power granted by the enabling statute to be permissible under the Constitution. The provision of Article 18 of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Insurance Act stating that the insurer may by a written notice cancel the insurance in the case where the insured entity closes down its business or is dissolved or goes bankrupt or fails to pay the insurance premium and, default penalty due and payable notwithstanding, the compulsory execution proceeding taken against such entity and that the insurer may immediately cancel the insurance in case the insured entity fails to pay the insurance premium and default penalty overdue after lapse of the time limit given by the insurer in a notice and there are sufficient facts to show that there is no possibility for the insured entity to make payment, adds extra reasons for the termination of the insurance that do not exist in the Labor Insurance Act, has gone beyond the power granted by the Act with respect to the scope of the enforcement rules, and is thus contrary to the intention embodied in Article 23 of the Constitution. Said provision must cease to be operative.

　　In this case regarding labor insurance, where the Petitioner demands interpretation with respect to the question of whether Article 18 of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Insurance Act applied by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment Pan-Tze No. 156 delivered in 2002 is in conflict with the Constitution, we must point out at the outset that, while the Petitioner fails to state that this petition is based on the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act, Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, which allows a person to petition for constitutional interpretation in case his constitutional right was illegally infringed upon and he has brought a lawsuit for such infringement in pursuance of legal procedures, but has raised doubts as to the constitutionality of the statute or regulation relied upon by the court in its final and irrevocable judgment, and the Petitioner has by mistake invoked Subparagraph 1 of said Article as the ground for his petition, the Petitioner has asserted specifically, inter alia, that Article 18 of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Insurance Act applied by the aforesaid irrevocable and final judgment is against the enabling statute by adding extra restrictions not prescribed by law and must be declared null and void. We think the Petitioner’s statements meet the elements required by the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act, Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, and we have hence decided to take up this case.

　　Labor insurance is a type of social insurance as a part of the social security program established for the realization of the fundamental national policies laid down by Article 153 of the Constitution with respect to the protection of the livelihood of workers and Article 155 of the Constitution and Article 10, Paragraph 8, of the Amendments to the Constitution with respect to the establishment of a social insurance program. The Labor Insurance Act is a legislation enacted in pursuance of the purposes of the Constitution outlined above. The right of a worker to enroll in the labor insurance program and all of his public law rights arising therefrom are guaranteed by the Constitution. All matters in connection with the commencement, suspension, and termination of the effect of the insurance and the performance of insurance payment are matters relating to the rights and obligations of workers arising out of the insurance relations and are of great concern to the interest of workers. Thus, any restriction on the workers’ right must be prescribed by law, and the legislative purpose and approach must be consistent with Article 23 of the Constitution. If the administrative authorities are empowered by law to issue rules and ordinances as supplements thereto, such rules and ordinances must be consistent with the legislative intention and must not go beyond the scope of power granted by the enabling statute to be permissible under the Constitution.

　　Where an insured event occurs to a worker who has enrolled in the labor insurance program as an insured during the term of the insurance, the insured or his beneficiary may legally claim insurance payment from the insurer. (See the Labor Insurance Act, Article 19, Paragraph 1). In the event of failure of an insured entity to pay the insurance premium when due and payable, the Labor Insurance Act provides that the insurer shall charge a default penalty upon lapse of the statutory grace period and shall take legal action if the insured entity continues to fail to make payment upon the lapse of the period of fifteen (15) days after the default penalty is charged, and that from the date such legal action is taken the insurer is entitled to temporarily suspend payment of insurance benefit until the insurance premium and the default penalty due are fully paid. (See the Act, Article 17, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3). The Act has no provision to allow the insurer to cancel the insurance for the insured in the above circumstances. However, the Enforcement Rules of the Act provide in Article 18: “The insurer may by a written notice cancel the insurance in case the insured entity closes down its business or is dissolved or goes bankrupt or fails to pay the insurance premium and default penalty due and payable notwithstanding the compulsory execution proceeding taken against such entity. The term of the insurance shall be suspended and the insurance premium payable and the default payment chargeable shall be computed as of the date the facts specified above are ascertained as the base date therefor. If such date cannot be ascertained, the date determined by the insurer upon investigation shall be the base date (Paragraph 1). The insurer may immediately cancel the insurance in the case where the insured entity fails to pay the insurance premium and default penalty overdue after lapse of the time limit given by the insurer in a notice and where there are sufficient facts to show that there is no possibility for the insured entity to make payment, and in such circumstance, the term of the insurance shall be suspended and the insurance premium payable and the default payment chargeable shall be computed as of the date of expiration of the time limit given in a notice demanding payment (Paragraph 2).” The article quoted has obviously added reasons for the termination of the insurance that do not exist in the Labor Insurance Act and has gone beyond the power granted by the Act with respect to the scope of the Enforcement Rules, and is thus contrary to the intention embodied in Article 23 of the Constitution. Said provision must cease to be operative. Furthermore, orbiter dictum, granted that the state should be given more room for discretion in order to insure sound financing for the insurance and the perpetual operation of the labor insurance program, to the extent that the insurer is allowed to cancel the insurance in case the insured entity fails to pay the premium and default penalty owed and payable and compulsory execution has brought no result or it is obvious that full payment has become impossible, it is desirable that different measures be adopted by taking into consideration, on the principle of proportionality, whether the insured has paid the premium or whether there exists any special circumstance. A fortiori, it is also provided by the proviso to Paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Act that an insured person shall not be temporarily refused payment of insurance benefits because the insured entity fails to pay the premium and default penalty owed and payable by it if the portion of the premium payable by the insured person has already been deducted by or paid to such insured entity.