Women and Justice: Court: Constitutional Court of Taiwan

Domestic Case Law

司法院大法官會議第807號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 807) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (2021)

Employment discrimination

The Court found that Article 49(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which prohibits female workers from working at night, violated the Constitution’s gender equality rule. One of the purposes of the article is to protect female workers' health. However, it is a requirement for all workers, and there is no reasonable ground to exclude male workers from this requirement. Another purpose of the article is to protect female workers' safety at night. Based on the Constitution, the state is obligated to take various possible protections, including imposing some obligations on employers to provide safe transportation or dormitories to those female workers. However, instead of protecting female workers' safety at night, the article completely prohibits female workers from working at night, limiting female workers' freedom and right to work at night. Thus, it is unconstitutional.

勞動基準法第49條第1項限制女性勞工於夜間工作之規定，違反憲法第7條保障性別平等之意旨。本條其中一項立法目的，係保障女性勞工之健康，惟此種需求係所有勞工之需求，並無合理理由將男性勞工排除在外。本條另一項立法目的係保障女性勞工夜間工作之安全。基於憲法增修條文規定，國家應有義務採取各種可能之安全保護措施，包括使雇主提供安全交通工具或宿舍予女性勞工之義務。然而，系爭規定竟全面禁止女性勞工於夜間工作，致女性原應享有並受保障之安全夜行權變相成為限制其自由選擇夜間工作之理由，因此系爭規定應屬違憲。

司法院大法官會議第452號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 452) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (1998)

Gender discrimination, Property and inheritance rights

Article 1002 of the Civil Code in 1998 stipulated," The residence of the wife shall be that of the husband…; nevertheless, in case there is an agreement that the residence of the husband shall be that of the wife…, the agreement shall be upheld." This article was against the principle of equality and proportionality of the Constitution. Though the article allows the husband or wife to make an agreement about their residence, it failed to take into consideration that if a husband refuses to make such an agreement with his wife or if an agreement cannot be made, the wife has no choice but to accept her husband's domicile as hers. This article also failed to consider the wife's freedom to choose her residence; thus, it is unconstitutional.

1998年民法第1002條規定：「妻以夫之住所為住所…，但約定夫以妻之住所為住所…，從其約定。」此一規定因違反平等原則及比例原則而違憲。雖該條賦予夫妻一方得另行約定住所，但如夫拒絕為約定或雙方協議不成時，妻即須以夫之住所為住所。該條規定亦未考慮妻應有選擇住所之自由，故而違憲。

司法院大法官會議第457號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 457) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (1998)

Gender discrimination, Property and inheritance rights

The Regulations for the Handling of the Government Owned Housing and Farmlands Vacated by Married Veterans after Their Hospitalization, Retirement or Death distributes plots of state farmland to veterans. Section 4-III of the Regulations provides, “If the surviving spouse of the deceased veteran remarries but without issue or has only daughter(s), the land and housing shall be reclaimed unconditionally upon the marriage of the daughter(s); and the rights of the veteran may be inherited by his son, if any.” The Court explained that the government can allow a veteran’s surviving dependents to continue using and farming the state land distributed to veterans, and can extend the term “dependents” to a veteran’s children. In doing so, however, the government should consider the children’s ability to earn a living and cultivate the land, and must keep in mind the principle of gender equality enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution and Article 10-VI of the Amendments to the Constitution. The Court held that Section 4-III of the Regulations violates this principle because it limits the right of inheritance of a deceased veteran to the veteran’s son without regard to the son’s ability or marital status. Thus, the Court held that Section 4-III of the Regulations discriminates against a specific group of women on the premise of marital status and sex. As such, the Court held that the government must revise Section 4-III of the Regulations to remove the discriminatory provision.

行政院國軍退除役官兵輔導委員會發布之「本會各農場有眷場員就醫、就養或死亡開缺後房舍土地處理要點」第4條第3項規定：「死亡場員之遺眷如改嫁他人而無子女者或僅有女兒，其女兒出嫁後均應無條件收回土地及眷舍，如有兒子准由兒子繼承其權利」。法院解釋認為，政府可以允許退除役官兵的遺眷繼續使用和耕種分配給該退除役官兵的國有土地，並可以將「遺眷」一詞擴大解釋至該退除役官兵的子女。然而，於此同時，政府應考慮該子女的謀生和耕種能力，並且必須謹記憲法第7條和憲法增修條文第10條第6項規定的性別平等原則。法院認為，該要點第4條第3項規定違反了此一原則，因為其將已故退除役官兵的繼承權限制在退伍軍人的兒子身上，且不考慮兒子的謀生和耕種能力或婚姻狀況。因此，法院認為，該要點第4條第3項規定以婚姻狀況和性別為前提，歧視特定婦女群體。於此情況下，法院認為，政府必須修正該要點第4條第3項規定以刪除歧視條文。

司法院大法官會議第147號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 147) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (1976)

Divorce and dissolution of marriage

Article 1001 of the Civil Code provides that spouses have a “mutual marital obligation to cohabit” absent legally justifiable reasons for not cohabiting. The Court held that a husband’s extramarital affair violates the “marital obligation of fidelity” and qualifies as a legally justifiable reason for the wife not to cohabit with the husband. Thus, the Court held that a husband’s extramarital affair releases his wife from her marital obligation to cohabit, but only for the period during which he maintains the affair.

民法第1001條規定，配偶如果欠缺法律上合理的不同居理由，就有 「婚姻同居義務」。法院認為，丈夫納妾違反了 「婚姻忠誠義務」，妻子可以之作為不與丈夫同居的合法理由。因此，法院認為，丈夫納妾可以免除妻子的婚姻同居義務，但只限於在他撫養妾的期間。

司法院大法官會議第617號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 617) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (2006)

Sexual violence and rape

Article 235 of the Criminal Code provides for criminal penalties for people who distribute, broadcast or sell “obscene” material, and to people who manufacture or possess obscene material “with the intent to distribute, broadcast or sell.” The Court held that the term “obscene” is not an indefinite “concept of law,” but rather includes material containing, among other things, violent or sexually abusive content. As such, the Court held that the law is a reasonable restraint on free speech and free publication. Thus, the law is constitutional and bans, among other things, material that includes violent or sexually abusive content.

刑法第235條規定對散布、播送或販賣，以及意圖散布、播送、販賣而製造、持有「猥褻」物品的人，處以刑事處罰。法院認為，「猥褻」一詞並非不確定的「法律概念」，而是包括含有暴力或性虐待等內容。於此情形，法院認為，此一法條是對言論自由和出版自由的合理限制。因此，該法律為合憲，而且禁止包含暴力或性虐待之內容。

司法院大法官會議第666號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No. 666) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (2009)

Gender discrimination

Article 80, Section 1, Sub-section 1 of the Social Order Maintenance Act establishes administrative penalties of detention and a fine for any person who engages in sexual conduct or cohabitation with the intent of obtaining financial gain. The Court noted that a transaction for sexual conduct necessarily involves two people: the person engaging in the conduct with the intent of obtaining financial gain, and the other person who provides consideration for the conduct. The law at issue only punishes the former party by focusing on the subjective intent of the person seeking financial gain from the sexual transaction. The Court also noted that the former party is more likely to be female. Thus, the Court held that the law essentially targets and punishes females who participate in financial transactions for sex. As such, the Court held that the law’s focus on the subjective intent for financial gain violates the principle of gender equality in Article 7 of the Constitution. The Court decreed that the provision would become ineffective upon two years after the issuance of the decision.

社會秩序維護法第80條第1項第1款規定，任何以獲取經濟利益為目的之性行為或同居行為者，應處以拘留和罰鍰等行政罰。法院指出，性交易行為必然涉及兩個人：以獲取經濟利益為目的之行為人，以及為該行為提供對價的另一個人。此一規定只針對主觀上從性交易中尋求經濟利益的前者進行處罰，且前者更可能是女性。因此，法院認為，此一規定實質上是針對並懲罰那些參與性交易的女性。在這種情況下，法院認為，此一規定針對主觀上從性交易中尋求經濟利益者，與憲法第七條之平等原則有違，應自本解釋公布之日起至遲於二年屆滿時，失其效力。

司法院大法官會議第559號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No.559) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (2003)

Domestic and intimate partner violence

In the case of protection orders involving monetary payment, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act explicitly authorizes the agency empowered to execute such orders and sets forth procedures and methods or doing so, in keeping with Constitutional requirements. However, for protection orders not involving monetary payment, the Act provides only general authorization of police agencies without procedures and methods, so the Act must be amended to fulfill the Constitutional requirement of specific and explicit authorization by law.

對於涉及金錢給付的保護令，家庭暴力防治法明確授權有權執行此種保護令機構相關程序和方法，以符合憲法要求。然而，關於不涉及金錢給付的保護令，該法僅有對於警察機構的一般授權，而沒有規定程序和方法，因此該法必須進行修正，以滿足憲法對於法律授權明確性的要求。

司法院大法官會議第365號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No.365) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (1994)

Gender discrimination

Article 1089 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that in situations of parental disagreement in exercising parental rights over a minor, the father has the right of final decision, is in violation of both Article 7 of the Constitution (stating that both sexes are equal under the law) and Article 9 of the Amendment (eliminating sexual discrimination). Therefore, Article 1089 should be examined and amended. The current Article is void within two years of this interpretation.

民法第1089條規定，在父母對未成年人行使親權有分歧的情況下，父親有最終決定權。該規定既違反了憲法第7條（兩性在法律上平等），也違反了憲法增修條文第9條（消除性別歧視）規定。 因此，民法第1089條應進行檢驗並修正，並應自本解釋公布之日起至遲於二年屆滿時，失其效力。

司法院大法官會議第554號解釋 (J.Y. Interpretation No.554) Constitutional Court of Taiwan (2002)

Gender-based violence in general

The Taiwan Constitutional Court overturned this decision in J.Y. 791. This case allowed the legislature to enact a law restricting freedom of sexual behavior within the system of marriage (such as by making adultery punishable under criminal law), but only if the restrictions are not overly severe in violation of the principle of proportionality embodies in Article 23 of the Constitution. In particular, the offense must be indictable only upon complaint, and no complaint may be instituted if the spouse has connived against or forgiven the offending party for the offense.

立法機構可以制定法律來限制婚姻制度內的性行為自由（如規定通姦行為應受刑法處罰），但前提是這種限制不能過於嚴厲，以至於違反憲法第23條揭示的比例原則。 尤其，該犯罪行為必須於提出告訴時是可以起訴的，且如果配偶縱容或原諒行為人的犯罪行為，則不得再行提出告訴。