公務人員退休所得法制與信賴保護原則──以大法官解釋第717號為中心

Civil Servants Pension Act and Principle of Legitimate Expectation ─ Centering on Grand Justice Interpretation No. 717

劉世博(Shin-Po Liu)

指導教授 ： 陳櫻琴

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/CYCU.2015.00147

摘要

我國邁入開發國家行列之後，面臨政府財政赤字及高齡化、少子化問題，亟需對公務人員退休制度為通盤之檢討。2006改革前，公務人員退休除得領取退休金外，另享有優惠存款及年終慰問金；其部分退休人員之所得替代率甚有超過100%，顯有不公平情形。
自2000年政黨輪替後，為改善此不公平情形，政府即針對退休軍公教人員退休保障過度問題展開檢討；並於2006年提出「九五年改革方案」，以限制所得替代率過高之退休人員得存入優惠存款的金額之方式加以改革。在2008年二次政黨輪替後，對於現行年金制度仍存在之「經費不足、行業不平、世代不均」等三大缺失，主張將以「財務健全、社會公平、世代包容、務實穩健」為政府改革目標，並持續再對優惠存款規定再為調整。此外，立法委員於審查民國102年預算時發現，退休公務人員每年還享有「年終慰問金」，造成國庫一定之負擔。另外，考試院於民國103年草擬公務人員退休撫卹法草案，所研議內容將調降公務人員退休金所得，惟目前尚擱置於立法院待審議。
上述政策改革所主張者，主要係以國家財政、世代正義等理由；可謂言之成理。惟相關改革是否無違背信賴保護原則、法律保留原則、法律不溯及既往原則、財產權保障、比例原則、公益性原則、平等原則等法治國基本內涵，甚值得研究。本研究以大法官解釋第717號為中心，探討公務人員退休所得法制有關優惠存款的問題，並以此延伸探討退休金與年終慰問金的法律爭議。
研究發現，針對2006變革前，確有公務人員退休所得替代率過高，對國家財政造成負擔。至於在變革主要爭議上，最主要集中在對信賴保護原則的操作上；實務上大致認為相關變革無違背信賴保護原則，但學說上對於此原則操作上尚存有相當歧異，還未能形成共識。
經研究後，法制變革上建議可斟酌設立合理的底限，以因應變革下仍能維持退休人員退休生活所需。並應儘量將退休給與以法律或法律授權規定，以減少法律保留的爭議。在解釋上則應注意退休所得的不同來源、歷史脈絡等等。

關鍵字

公務人員 ； 財產權 ； 法律保留原則 ； 退休金制度 ； 法律不溯及既往原則 ； 信賴保護原則

並列摘要

After Taiwan was included in the review list of developed countries, Taiwan has faced the problems of government budget deficit, aging, and declining birthrate. Therefore, there is an urgent need to fully review civil service retirement system. Before the legal reform, in addition to receiving pension, civil servants could also enjoy favorable interest and end of year benefits after retirement. Compared with laborers, it seems that the country has overly protected civil servants.
Since the change of ruling party in 2000, Bian government started to review the overprotection of retired civil servants, and proposed “2006 Reform” in 2006 to restrict the amount of money under favorable interest for retirees with excessively high income replacement ratio. In 2008, after the second change of ruling party, Ma government also pointed out the three major disadvantages of the existing pension system, including “lack of funds, industrial injustice, and inequality in generations.” Ma government’s reform objectives are financial soundness, social justice, generation inclusiveness, and pragmatic moderation.” In addition, Ma government also keeps adjusting the provisions on amount of money under favorable interest. Moreover, during the 2013 budget review, legislators found that, it is unfair that, in addition to pension and favorable interest mentioned above, civil servants also enjoy an annual “end of year benefits.” Executive Yuan had no choice but to change the rules, and restricted the qualifications for obtainment of end of year benefits. More importantly, Examination Yuan submitted the Draft on Civil Service Survivor Relief Act to Legislative Yuan to discuss about the decrease of pension income of civil servants.
The main reasons why the said policy reforms were proposed were national financial deficit and generation justice, which are quite reasonable. However, it is uncertain whether relevant reforms violate the basic principles of a country ruled by law, such as legal reservation principle, principle of non-retroactivity, trust protection principle, property rights protection, principle of proportionality, principle of public welfare, and principle of equality. This study centered on Grand Justice Interpretation No. 717 to investigate the problems derived from the decrease of amount of money under favorable interest, and probe into the legal disputes concerning the decrease of pension and restriction on qualification for obtainment of end of year benefits.
This study found that, before the reforms, the income replacement ratio of some of the civil servants was indeed too high, which was a burden to national finance to a certain extent. As for the major disputes of reforms, this study focused on the operation of trust protection and legal reservation principle. Although there were generally the same opinions in practice, theoretically, there were significantly different opinions, and the consensus has not been reached.
This study proposed the suggestions as follows: It is necessary to set up a reasonable bottom line, and use legislative power for supervision. It is necessary to pay attention to the rationality of source of pension income and the appropriateness of history of pension provision.

並列關鍵字

Property rights ； Non-retroactivity in law ； Legal reservation ； Principle of legitimate expectation

參考文獻

陳愛娥，法律之溯及效力──兼評司法院釋字第620號解釋，東吳公法論叢，第4卷，頁147-168（2011）。

劉憲璋，軍公教優惠存款制度之法律問題，淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策研究所（2008）。

吳嘉娟，軍公教18%優惠存款制度之研究，國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所（2007）。

蔡宗珍，退休公教人員優惠存款措施之法律關係及相關信賴保護爭議析論，臺大法學論叢，第40卷，第1期，頁99-138（2011）。

黃昭元，平等權審查標準的選擇問題：兼論比例原則在平等權審查的適用可能，臺大法學論叢，第37期，頁253-284（2008）。