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.
Women and Justice: Court: Constitutional Court of Taiwan
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.
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 taking of a concubine 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 taking of a concubine releases his wife from her marital obligation to cohabit, but only for the period during which he maintains the concubine.
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.