Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Constitution stipulates that the state, in order to improve the livelihood of laborers and to upgrade their productive skills, shall enact laws and implement policies for their protection.　The Labor Standards Act is enacted to realize this fundamental national policy.　Legislators possess a certain amount of discretion in determining the substance and methods of working conditions for workers’ protection.　But when a law has the effect of restricting the fundamental rights of the people as a result, the constitutional principle of proportionality should still be followed.

　　　 Articles 55 and 56 of the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter the “Act”) respectively provide that employers are responsible for paying for workers’ retirement pensions, and are obligated to deduct a certain amount of money every month and deposit the same into a special account as the reserve fund of workers’ retirement pensions.　These provisions, as one of the means to ensure workers’ livelihood, help protect workers’ rights and interests, strengthen employment relationships, promote overall social stability and economic development, and thereby do not exceed the scope of legislative discretion.　The resulting restriction on employers’ rights to freely determine the contents of employment contracts and to use and dispose of assets at their own discretion shall be deemed proper under the Constitution, since such restriction helps to accomplish the state’s goal of caring for workers and takes into account the fiscal capabilities of the government, as well as confirming the obligation of the employers—as the recipients of workers’ labor—to take care of their employees.　The Act imposes fines on employers who violate the aforesaid compulsory provisions in order to compel employers to fulfill their retirement payment obligations, so as to ensure the livelihood and sustenance of workers after their retirement.　In consideration of factors such as the context of the legislation, labor relations, the nature and impact of the interference with legitimate interests, and so forth, it is therefore necessary for the state to prescribe criminal fines.　Such a compulsory provision, conforming to the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution, does not contradict the constitutional purpose of protecting people’s freedom to enter into contracts or violate people’s property rights protected by Article 15 of the Constitution.　

　　　 The Act imposes upon employers the obligations to pay for workers’ retirement pensions, and it applies to all forms of labor relationships except for those that are difficult to enforce.　Therefore, it does not contradict the equal protection principle stated in Article 7 of the Constitution.　The pension system for workers put in place by legislators entails prioritized choices and designs, reflecting legislators’ evaluation of the objective socioeconomic situations as well as the effective distribution of state resources.　This, again, does not contradict the equal protection principle stated in Article 7 of the Constitution.　Moreover, the Constitution does not prohibit the state from adopting means other than the provision of social insurance to accomplish the goal of protecting workers.　Legislators, therefore, enjoy a certain degree of discretion in designing the overall system for workers’ protection.　Both the old-age benefits prescribed under the Labor Insurance Act and the retirement pension prescribed under the Labor Standards Act help to achieve the constitutional purpose of protecting the livelihood of workers. Since the two systems are different in nature, adoption of both systems can hardly be regarded as a violation of the Constitution.　Nonetheless, legislators should consider the overall social changes and accordingly from time to time review the options regarding protecting the livelihood of workers.　The Act was enacted and implemented in 1984, and issues such as whether the current workers’ pension system has been effectively implemented, whether this approach needs to be examined, and how it can be improved to correspond to the overall social changes in order to keep up with the pace of changes and to be consistent with the constitutional goal of labor protection, should be reviewed at appropriate times. The decision of whether to integrate the existing workers retirement system and social insurance system in response to the emerging graying trend should also be considered, as such trends result from the changing demographic composition and are likely to impact the socioeconomic structure and the welfare system in the future, and such decisions will include everyone’s interests and involve the issue of the distribution of social resources and the financial capabilities of the state to shoulder such burdens.　The relevant authorities should, in addition to striking a balance between retaining the existing protection enjoyed by workers and noting the ability of employers to pay for workers’ retirement pensions and the operational costs of enterprises, conduct a comprehensive examination of the current scheme in accordance with the fundamental principle of the Constitution to protect workers and the purpose of supporting and preserving the survival and development of small- and medium-sized businesses. The provisions of international labor conventions and the overall development of the nation shall also be taken into account.

　　　 Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Constitution stipulates that the state, in order to improve the livelihood of laborers and to upgrade their productive skills, shall enact laws and implement policies for their protection.　The Labor Standards Act is enacted to realize this fundamental national policy.　Legislators possess a certain amount of discretion in determining the substance and methods for workers’ protection.　But when a law has the effect of restricting the fundamental rights of the people as a result, the constitutional principle of proportionality should still be followed.

　　　 The Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “the Act”) was enacted for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of workers, providing the minimum standard for work conditions.　A business entity may, considering the nature of its business and the form of labor, negotiate the specific terms of the employment contract with workers, but the terms cannot be lower than the minimum standard prescribed by the Act.　Legislators possess a certain amount of discretion in establishing the minimum standard of working conditions for workers’ protection. And the worker’s retirement pension system provided for in Chapter VI of the Act is one of such minimum working conditions that the state purposefully establishes through legislation, aimed at lowering worker turnover rate, rewarding seniority, enabling the workers to concentrate on their work, and raising productivity, so as to reduce the operational costs of businesses and increase corporate profits.　Moreover, the pension system cultivates stable employment relationships, and makes it possible for workers to receive fair retirement pensions to sustain their livelihood after retirement.　Therefore, the provisions in Chapter VI of the Act are consistent with Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Constitution, which provides that the state shall implement policies for workers’ protection.　The Act stipulates that employers shall deduct a certain amount of money every month and deposit the same into a special account as the reserve fund of workers’ retirement payment, and shall make a lump sum retirement payment in accordance with the payment standard prescribed by the law to workers who meet the required legal standard.　 According to the Act, the fund in that special account cannot be transferred, attached, or offset against other obligations or used as security.　The fund shall become a part of the Labor Retirement Fund; its safekeeping and utilization are managed by the financial institution designated by the central competent authority and the Ministry of Finance, and monitored by a joint committee composed of representatives of both employers and employees (See Articles 53 and 55 of the Act, as well as Article 56 of the Act before the revision on June 12, 2002).　The compulsory requirement of monthly deduction to be deposited in a special account as the reserve fund of retirement payment for workers, although a means to require employers to fulfill their legal obligations of taking care of workers, does restrict employers’ rights to freely determine the content of employment contracts and to use and dispose of assets at their own discretion.　The requirement, however, shall be deemed proper under the Constitution, as it helps to accomplish the state’s goal of caring for workers and takes into account the fiscal capabilities of the government, at the same time confirming the obligation of employers—as the recipients of workers’ labor—to take care of their employees.　The special account, by separating the pension funds from corporate accounts, prevents commingling and misappropriation, thereby securing the financial source for workers’ pensions, protecting workers’ pension-related rights and interests, and reducing employers’ financial problems arising from the need to raise funds for pension payments in a short period of time. This measure apparently helps to achieve the goal of protecting the rights and interests of workers.　Furthermore, the central competent authority is authorized to determine, in view of the circumstances, the rate of the employer’s contribution to the workers’ retirement fund (according to Article 2 of the Measures for the Deduction, Deposit and Management of the Workers’ Retirement Funds [the “Measures”], the business entity shall deduct 2 percent to 15 percent of the total monthly wage payment and deposit the same into the workers' retirement fund each month), procedures, and other matters.　The Measures confer on the competent government authority a certain flexibility to make the determination (See also Articles 3 and 5 of the Measures). At the same time, employers can enjoy certain tax credits regarding their contribution (See Article 33 of the Income Tax Act).　Accordingly, the requirement is a reasonable means to fulfill the goal of protecting workers.　As another means to compel employers to perform their retirement payment obligations, Article 78 of the Act and Subparagraph 1 of Article 79 of the earlier version of the Act before its revision on December 25, 2002, respectively prescribe a fine of not more than NT 30,000 dollars for violating the provisions regarding retirement payment, and a fine between NT 2,000 and 20,000 dollars for violating the provisions regarding monthly deduction from and deposit to the fund.　Considering factors such as the context of the legislation, the nature and impact of the interference with legitimate interests, and workers’ comparatively disadvantageous position in the economy which makes it difficult for them to negotiate a reasonable pension arrangement with employers through labor contracts or collective bargaining agreements, it is therefore necessary for the state to prescribe fines in order to accomplish the goal of protecting the livelihood and sustenance of workers after their retirement.　Such a compulsory provision, conforming to the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution, does not contradict the constitutional purpose of protecting people’s freedom to enter into contracts or violate people’s property rights protected by Article 15 of the Constitution.

　　　 The Act imposes upon employers the obligations to pay for workers’ retirement pensions, and applies to all forms of labor relationships except for those that are difficult to enforce in nature (See Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 3 of the act, revised on December 27, 1996).　Although such a broad application of the Act fails to consider factors such as the size of the business unit, the length of the employment contract, or the duration of the employment relationship, it reflects the legislators’ intent, when enacting the Act and designing labor policies, to care for the livelihood of all senior workers after their retirement. Therefore, such an application does not contradict the equal protection principle stated in Article 7 of the Constitution. Moreover, the pension system for workers put in place by legislators, a decision considering factors such as the nature of work, wage structure, income source, objective socioeconomic situations, and effective distribution of the state’s resources, reflects legislators’ prioritized choices and designs.　This, again, does not contradict the equal protection principle of Article 7 of the Constitution.

　　　 The Constitution does not prohibit the state from adopting means other than social insurance to accomplish the goal of protecting workers.　Legislators, therefore, enjoy a certain degree of discretion in designing the overall system for workers’ protection. Both the old-age benefits prescribed under the Labor Insurance Act and the retirement pension prescribed under the Act help to achieve the constitutional purpose of protecting the livelihood of workers. Since the two systems are different in nature, adoption of both systems can hardly be considered to be in violation of the Constitution.　Nonetheless, legislators should consider the overall social changes and accordingly from time to time review the options regarding protecting the livelihood of workers.　The Act was enacted and implemented in 1984, and issues such as whether the current workers’ pension system has been effectively implemented, whether this approach needs to be examined, and how it can be improved to correspond to the overall social changes in order to keep up with the pace of changes and to be consistent with the constitutional goal of labor protection, should be reviewed at appropriate times.　The decision of whether to integrate the existing workers retirement system and social insurance system in response to the emerging graying trend should also be considered, as such trends result from the changing demographic composition and are likely to impact the socioeconomic structure and the welfare system in the future, and such decisions will include everyone’s interests and involve the issue of the distribution of social resources and the financial capabilities of the state to shoulder such burdens.　The relevant authorities should, in addition to striking a balance between retaining the existing protection enjoyed by workers and noting the ability of employers to pay for workers’ retirement pensions and the operational costs of enterprises, conduct a comprehensive examination of the current scheme in accordance with the fundamental principle of the Constitution to protect workers and the purpose of supporting and preserving the survival and development of small- and medium-sized businesses.　The provisions of international labor conventions and the overall development of the nation shall also be taken into account.