您的瀏覽器不支援JavaScript語法,但是並不影響您獲取本網站的內容
司法院內部與外部景觀圖片動畫
::: | | 大法官 | 案件審理 | 大法官解釋 | 相關法規 | |
 
多條件查詢頁面按鈕

 

:::
 

大法官解釋表頭

(釋字第 555 號 )      友善列印PRINT  
Interpretation
J.Y.
Interpretation
NO.555 
Date 2003/1/10
Issue Are the Enforcement Rules of the Act Governing the Recovery of Damage of Individual Rights during the Period of Martial Law in conflict with the Constitution and the enabling Act in restricting the applicational scope of the enabling statute to the public officials, who receive remuneration under the organic law of relevant bodies, and thus excluding the military officers, political officials and contracted personnel?
Holding   The scope of application of Article 3 of the Act Governing the Recovery of Damage of Individual Rights during the Period of Martial Law, and in particular, its definition of public servants, is related to the various terminologies adopted by legislations of this State to refer to public servants. According to the provisions in Article 86 of the Constitution and the Public Functionaries Appointment Act, reference to “public servants” means those who are qualified by law for government employment through examination and have titles or are ranked in the approved institutes. Under the current system of law, public servants are defined to mean ordinary public officers, thus excluding military officers. Article 3, Paragraph 1, of the Enforcement Rules of the Act Governing the Recovery of Damage of Individual Rights during the Period of Martial Law stipulates: "Reference to public servants in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of this Act means public officials, with the exclusion of political appointees, publicly elected officials and contracted employees of the government, who receive remuneration under the regulations of the relevant bodies." It further refines the definition of public servants referred to in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the said Act which states: "qualification of public servants, education personnel and government employees." Such definition does not include military officers due to their difference in nature, and is not in contradiction with the principle of equality, nor does it exceed the authority granted by the empowering statute or infringe upon the Constitution. The question as to whether the rights of military officers should be reinstated is within the scope of the legislative body's determination.
Reasoning   The scope of application of Article 3 of the Act Governing the Recovery of Damage of Individual Rights during the Period of Martial Law, in particular, its definition of public servants, is related to the various terminologies adopted by legislations of this State to refer to public servants. According to the provisions in Article 86 of the Constitution and the Public Functionaries Appointment Act, reference to “public servants” means those who are qualified by law for government employment through examination and have titles or are ranked in the approved institutes. The existing legislations concerning public servants and referring to public servants in their titles, including the abovementioned Public Functionaries Appointment Act, Public Functionaries Remuneration Act, Public Functionaries Protection Act, Public Functionaries Promotion Act, Public Functionaries Merit Evaluation Act, Public Functionaries Retirement Act, Act Governing the Payment of Compensation to Surviving Dependents of Public Functionaries, shall not apply to military officers. Under the current system of law, public servants are defined to mean ordinary public officials, excluding military officers.

  Article 3, Paragraph 1, of the Act Governing the Recovery of Damage of Individual Rights during the Period of Martial Law stipulates: "People who had been convicted of rebellion and/or treason during the period of martial law, sent to a reformatory, sued in a class action suit, or were subject to warrants of arrest, and had thus lost or been disqualified of the following qualifications, which may be restituted retrospectively in accordance with the law, upon application to the relevant authorities by the parties concerned: 1) successful completion of the public servants, specialists or technicians examination, 2) employment qualification for public servants, education personnel or government employees, 3) specialists and technicians' practicing permit, and 4) qualifying beneficiaries of financial assistance, retirement or insurance annuity." The provision permits the individuals who have lost or been disqualified of their various qualifications during the period of martial law, for reasons of having committed offences of rebellion and/or treason, to apply for restitution of their qualifications when certain conditions are met. Reference to "public servants" in Subparagraph 2 above means education personnel and government employees, and its scope of application is limited to public officials with the exclusion of military officers. This is different from Subparagraph 4 which provides for the restitution of qualifications for receiving financial assistance, retirement or insurance annuity, and is not restricted to public officials. Paragraph 5 of the same Article provides for the restitution of the said qualification for public officials without denying military officials such rights. Article 6 of the Enforcement Rules for the said Act, in an attempt to achieve the aforementioned purpose, provides: "Reference to pension in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4, of this Act covers the lump sum and monthly pension payments to public servants and education personnel, and the retirement wage, sustenance allowance, after-service annuity and maintenance payment to military officials."

  Article 3, Paragraph 1, of the Enforcement Rules of the said Act stipulates: "Reference to public servants in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of this Act means “public officials,” with the exclusion of political appointees, publicly elected officials and contracted employees of the government, who receive remuneration under the regulations of the relevant bodies." It further refines the definition of public servants referred to in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the said Act which states: "qualification of public servants, education staff and government employees." Such definition does not cover military officers because their combat and other national defense-related missions are vital to the State's national security and military needs. In addition, the training, age limitations for employment qualifications, conditions for promotion and duties to observe rules imposed on military officers are different from those of public officials. The definition has taken into consideration the difference in the nature of their services, and is not in contradiction with the principle of equality, nor does it exceed the authority granted by the empowering statute or infringe upon the Constitution. The question as to whether the rights of military officers should be reinstated is within the scope of the legislative body's determination.

' Translated by Wei-Feng Huang of THY Taiwan International Law Offices.
 

BACK

 
 
::: Home 中文(Chinese) Site Map
 
使用聲明 Copyright©2004 JUSTICES OF THE CONSTITUTIONSL COURT. JUDICIAL YUAN 本網站建議使用解析度為1024*768全彩及Explorer5.5以上瀏覽器     通過A+等級無障礙網頁檢測
多條件查詢頁面連結點 解釋爭點總覽頁面連結點