Taiwan

This Act was enacted to enforce the J.Y. Interpretation 748 and made same-sex marriage legal in Taiwan by legislation.

The Taiwan Constitutional Court held in this interpretation that the provisions of the Taiwan Civil Code on marriage and family, which did not contemplate same-sex marriage, violated the guarantees of freedom of marriage and right to equality under Articles 22 and 7, respectively, of the Taiwan Constitution.  The case involved consolidated ap

The Constitution guarantees that all citizens are equal before the law.  Article 5 guarantees equality among Taiwan’s various racial groups.  Article 7 states that all citizens enjoy the same rights irrespective of their sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation.  Article 22 provides that all other freedoms and rights of the people that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare shall be guaranteed under the Constitution.

Article 10 states that the State shall protect the dignity of women, safeguard their personal safety, eliminate sexual discrimination, and further substantive gender equality.  This Article further provides that the State shall, in accordance with the will of the ethnic groups, safeguard the status and political participation of the aborigines.

The Human Trafficking Prevention Act (the “HTPA”) was enacted to prevent human trafficking and to safeguard the rights of victims.  The HTPA defines “human trafficking” and related offenses, including “improper debt bondage,” specifies the responsibilities of the competent authorities at the central government, city, county, and municipal levels (including for cooperation among such competent authorities and with international governmental bodies and NGOs to eradicate human trafficking).

Originally enacted in 1995 as the Child and Youth Sexual Transaction Prevention Act, this Act (the “CYSEPA”) was enacted to prevent all forms of sexual exploitation of children and youths and ensure their healthy physical and mental development.  The CYSEPA  specifies the responsibilities of the relevant authorities  and governs the prevention of sexual exploitation of children and youths and the rescue, protection, and counseling of victims.  Competent authorities must arrange the placement of the victim in a child and youth welfare institution, foster family, or o

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.

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.

A Supreme Court holding that "although a spouse who has suffered unbearable mistreatment in cohabitation is entitled to sue for divorce, this does not include cases where the other party temporarily loses control and overreacts to the spouse's misconduct" is not unconstitutional.  To determine what constitutes "unbearable mistreatment in cohabitation," the courts should take into account the degree of the mistreatment, education levels, social status, and so on, determining if the degree of mistreatment goes beyond the violation of personal dignity and security that would be tolerated

A Supreme Court precedent from 1966 held that property obtained by a wife during the continuance of a marriage, but which cannot be proved separate property or contributed property, belongs to the husband.  The amendment of the Civil Code in 1985 under the authority of Article 7 of the Constitution emphasizes gender equity and invalidates this Supreme Court precedent.

最高法院1966年的一個判例認為，妻子在婚姻存續期間獲得的財產，如果不能證明該財產是與原有財產分離的或妻子對其有貢獻，則該財產屬於丈夫。依憲法第7條規定，1985年修正後的民法強調性別平等，並不再援用最高法院此一判例。