公務人員年金改革司法院釋字第782號解釋之評析

Comment on Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.782 of the Reform of Public Functionaries Retirement Pension

釋字第782號解釋認為退撫基金自始未依精算報告所提之最適提撥費率提撥，以及社會少子化使繳納費用者人數少，為退撫財務收支惡化原因之一，但此種論述，與其依據所提出「附件六」之事實數據，並不相符。顯示其就解釋標的之事實審查未明。其次，對以「共同提撥」精神設置之退撫基金設有「由政府負最後支付保證責任」之規定，解釋為於基金入不敷出時，得透過修法，對已退休之公務人員調降其退休給與，並將因此調降而節省支出之經費，挹注於退撫基金，使退撫基金得以「節流」及「開源」。然此種措施實際上係將退撫基金入不敷出之損失，歸由公務人員單方面負擔而政府不須履行其「負最後支付保證責任」之結果，乃違反退撫基金「共同提撥」之建制原則，顯不公平及不合理。再者，已預見系爭法律調降退休給與之期程及降幅之手段，可能提前達成預定改革效益之目的，並在解釋主文中提示相關機關應適時調整之。即在表示該手段對目的之達成，已逾越合理必要之範圍，並非侵害最小之手段。但解釋主文卻仍稱「與比例原則無違背」，顯然矛盾，且其論斷與司法院向來解釋「比例原則」所建立操作審查方法之常理法則亦有違背。因而得以上述作為聲請再作「補充解釋」之理由。

The J.Y. Interpretation No. 782 opined that the pension fund’s imbalance of the revenue and expenditure was caused partially by its failure to comply with the most ideal contribution rate proposed in the actuarial report and the decrease in payers resulted from low birth rates. However, this statement was inconsistent with the statistics attached as the Exhibit 6, demonstrating its unclear review of facts. Additionally, regarding the “shared contribution-based pension fund”, it interpreted the provision of “government will bear the final responsibility of guarantee” in the manner that allows reduction of retired public servants’ pension via law amendments to support the inadequate pension fund. However, this measure actually enabled the government to escape from its final responsibility of guaranteed payment while making public servants unilaterally responsible for the loss of pension fund, contradicting with such fund’s founding principle of “shared contribution”. Furthermore, the Interpretation reminded the relevant authority to adjust the pension reduction’s schedule and level as the said reduction may satisfy the reform purpose ahead of schedule, which already showed that the measure has exceeded the reasonable and necessary extent to achieve the purpose and therefore is not the least detrimental one. Nonetheless, the Interpretation still argued that it didn’t violate the principle of proportionality, and its discussion also conflicted with the Judicial Yuan’s practice when interpreting the foregoing principle. Hence, the above reasons may be used to apply for the “supplementary interpretation”.