Constitutional Court: Law Requiring Guardians to Accompany Children on School Buses Is Not Unconstitutional

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court is delivering a ruling on the constitutional petition filed by the family of the late farmer Baek Nam-gi in December 2015, claiming that the police's direct water cannon action violated the Constitution, at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the 23rd. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provision requiring a guardian to accompany children on school buses operated by academies and other institutions does not violate the Constitution.

On the 6th, the Constitutional Court announced that it dismissed a constitutional complaint filed by academy operator Mr. A and others, who argued that Article 53, Paragraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act, which mandates guardian accompaniment, infringes on their freedom of business and property rights.

In addition to this case, the Constitutional Court also dismissed all other petitions challenging provisions in the Passenger Transport Service Act that require guardians to accompany all children's school transport vehicles.

The Court explained, "Guardians accompanying children's school buses play an important role in effectively ensuring the safety of children not only during boarding and alighting but also during vehicle operation and in emergency situations such as traffic accidents, which cannot be guaranteed by the driver alone."

It added, "It is insufficient to impose the duty of protecting children during boarding, riding, or alighting solely on the bus driver. Therefore, the legislator's judgment that having a separate accompanying guardian is essential to protect children's safety is not unreasonable."

Mr. A and others, who operate academies or sports facilities and run vans with fewer than 15 seats, filed a constitutional complaint arguing that the provision forces them to hire new accompanying guardians, infringing on their freedom to perform their profession and property rights.

Meanwhile, a Constitutional Court official explained, "Through this decision, the Court has changed its precedent regarding the starting point for calculating the period for constitutional complaints against laws that include a grace period after enforcement."

Previously, the Court's position was that the cause of infringement on fundamental rights occurred on the 'law enforcement date.' However, the Court has now changed this precedent to consider the starting point for the complaint period as the date when the grace period stipulated in the law has elapsed (January 29, 2017), rather than the enforcement date (January 29, 2015).

Regarding this part of the case where the precedent was changed, the Court found the complaint procedurally valid and dismissed it on the merits.

Under current law, a constitutional complaint must be filed within 90 days from the date the infringement of fundamental rights is known, or within one year from the date the infringement occurred, for it to be effective.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.