J.Y. Interpretation 748

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 appeals by (i) the Taipei City Government, arguing that the relevant Civil Code provisions and a related directive of the Ministry of the Interior required it to deny registration for same-sex marriages in violation of the Constitution and (ii) an individual seeking a constitutional interpretation after exhausting other judicial remedies for the denial of his applications for a same-sex marriage. The Court concluded that an individual’s “decisional autonomy” as to whether and whom to marry is a fundamental right protected by Article 22 of the Constitution and that extending this right to same-sex couples would not affect the application of the Civil Code provisions on betrothal, conclusion of marriage, general effects of marriage, marital property regimes, and divorce with regard to opposite sex couples and also would not undermine or alter the social order. The Court also concluded that the classifications of impermissible discrimination under Article 7 of the Constitution are only illustrative rather than exhaustive and that different treatment based on other classifications, such as disability or sexual orientation, are also governed by the constitutional right to equality. The Court applied a heightened standard under Article 7, and concluded that the societal interest in procreation was not an essential element of marriage and that the “basic ethical orders” relating to traditional marriage (e.g., minimum age, monogamy, prohibition of marriage between close relatives, obligation of fidelity, and mutual obligation) would not be affected by legal recognition of same-sex marriages. The Court further stated that leaving the determination of the issue of same-sex marriage to the legislative process would indefinitely prolong the unfair treatment and ordered the legislative authorities to amend or enact laws to reflect this interpretation within two years. The Act for Implementation of J.Y. Interpretation 748 was enacted in 2019 to enforce this Interpretation.

台灣憲法法庭認為台灣民法親屬篇中未考量納入同性婚姻，有違反台灣憲法第22條及第7條之婚姻自由及平等權之保障。本案為共同聲請案件，聲請人之一臺北市政府為戶籍登記業務主管機關（戶籍法第22條參照），因所轄戶政事務所於辦理相同性別二人民申請之結婚登記業務，適用民法第4編親屬第2章婚姻（下稱婚姻章）規定及內政部函示，函轉法務部函，發生有牴觸憲法第7條、第22條及第23條規定之疑義，經由上級機關內政部層轉行政院，再由行政院轉請本院解釋。另一聲請人於窮盡司法途徑後，向憲法法庭聲請解釋。憲法法庭認為是否結婚及與誰接婚，皆屬個人憲法第22條所保障之自由意志，且該權利亦為同性伴侶所適用。現行婚姻章有關異性婚姻制度之當事人身分及相關權利、義務關係，不因本解釋而改變。憲法法庭也指出，憲法第7條規定：「中華民國人民，無分男女、宗教、種族、階級、黨派，在法律上一律平等。」本條明文揭示之5種禁止歧視事由，僅係例示，而非窮盡列舉。是如以其他事由，如身心障礙、性傾向等為分類標準，所為之差別待遇，亦屬本條平等權規範之範圍。是以性傾向作為分類標準所為之差別待遇，應適用較為嚴格之審查標準，以判斷其合憲性，除其目的須為追求重要公共利益外，其手段與目的之達成間並須具有實質關聯，始符合憲法第7條保障平等權之意旨。故以不能繁衍後代為由，未使相同性別二人得以結婚，顯非合理之差別待遇。倘以婚姻係為維護基本倫理秩序，如結婚年齡、單一配偶、近親禁婚、忠貞義務及扶養義務等為考量，其計慮固屬正當。惟若容許相同性別二人得依婚姻章實質與形式要件規定，成立法律上婚姻關係，且要求其亦應遵守婚姻關係存續中及終止後之雙方權利義務規定，並不影響現行異性婚姻制度所建構之基本倫理秩序。有關機關應於本解釋公布之日起2年內，依本解釋意旨完成相關法律之修正或制定。至於以何種形式達成婚姻自由之平等保護，屬立法形成之範圍。逾期未完成相關法律之修正或制定者，相同性別二人為成立上開永久結合關係，得依上開婚姻章規定，持二人以上證人簽名之書面，向戶政機關辦理結婚登記。