Interpretation
J.Y.
Interpretation |
NO.683
|
| Date |
2010/12/24 |
| Issue |
Is it unconstitutional for labor insurance cash payment not being made within ten days since the receipt of application and without the addition of delayed interests? |
| Holding |
1 Article 57 of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Insurance Act, amended and promulgated on September 13, 1996, stipulates: “Once the application for cash payment by the insured or his/her beneficiaries is completed and approved for disbursement, the insurer shall disburse the payment within ten days since the date the application is received.” The purpose is to prompt the labor insurer complete the cash payment of labor insurance as soon as possible, and to protect the livelihood of the insured laborers or their beneficiaries in the aftermath of the insured incidents, and is in compliance with the fundamental national policies of labor protection under the Constitution. |
| Reasoning |
1 Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Constitution stipulates: “The State, in order to improve the livelihood of laborers and farmers and to improve their productive skills, shall enact laws and carry out policies for their protection.” The front paragraph of Article 155 stipulates: “The State, in order to promote social welfare, shall establish a social insurance system.” Article 10, Paragraph 8 of the Amendments to the Constitution also mandates the State to put emphasis on social welfare services from social insurance. Therefore, the State shall establish a social insurance system to jointly undertake the risk of possible losses resulting from their lives or occupations. To realize this constitutional mandate, the legislative body enacts the Labor Insurance Act to ensure that laborers can promptly get various insurance payments in light of the occurrence of insurance incidents, so as to protect the livelihood of the laborers and to promote social security.
2 Article 57 of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Insurance Act, amended and promulgated on September 13, 1996, stipulates: “Once the application for cash payment by the insured or his/her beneficiaries is completed and approved for disbursement, the insurer shall disburse the payment within ten days since the date the application is received.” The purpose is to prompt the labor insurer complete the cash payment of labor insurance as soon as possible, and to protect the livelihood of the insured laborers or their beneficiaries in the aftermath of the insured incidents, and does not contravene the fundamental national policies of labor protection under the Constitution. With regard to how the insured laborers or their beneficiaries may seek remedy for damages resulting from the culpable delayed payment by the insurers, it should be pointed out that while the legislators have the naturally evolved authority, yet based on the above-indicated fundamental purpose under the Constitution for labor protection, they should certainly weigh in the progresses of social security mechanism, coordinate with the development of other social insurance systems, and make reference to the provisions on late fees and provisional suspension of insurance payment under Article 17 of the Labor Insurance Act so as to review constantly how the status of laborers can be improved in the labor insurance relations.
Translated by Prof. Dr. Ming-woei Chang .
|
| Editor's Note |
Summary of facts： 1.The Petitioner’s spouse, X, died on August 21, 1998 and the Petitioner filed a death benefit claim under Article 64 of the Labor Insurance Act. The Bureau of Labor Insurance (hereinafter BLI), based on then effective Article 18 of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Insurance Act, rejected the claim on the ground that the company X worked for before her death had failed to pay the insurance premium, thus resulting in its entire employees being withdrawn from the labor insurance since September 30, 1997. The Petitioner subsequently petitioned a constitutional interpretation and the Grand Justices rendered J.Y. Interpretation No. 568 on November 14, 2003, holding that by withdrawing the insured from the insurance due to premium payer’s failure to pay, the above-indicated Enforcement Rules have added items not provided under the statute and thus contravened the Constitution. The Petitioner then filed for a reexamination based on the this J.Y. Interpretation, and after its review, the BLI agreed to reinstate the status of X’s labor insurance until the date of her death, and approved the disbursement of her insurance benefits on March 2, 2004.
2.The Petitioner asserted that under Article 57 of the Enforcement Rules of the Labor Insurance Act, as amended and promulgated on September 13, 1996, delayed interests should be added for the BLI’s non-payment until March 2, 2004. The BLI, however, rejected the request, claiming that there was no delay. Having gone through the administrative litigation, the case was finally dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court ((98) Pan Tzu No. 654 Judgment (2009)). The Petitioner then filed the present interpretation.
|
Opinion
(Files) |
Chinese only
|
PRINT