Constitutional Court: "Restriction on Trainees Watching Presidential TV Debates is Constitutional"... "Limitation on Braille Election Pamphlet Pages Also Constitutional"

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court and other constitutional justices entering the grand bench and taking their seats. / Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Constitutional Court has ruled that restricting trainees undergoing military training at a training center from watching presidential TV debates cannot be considered an infringement of voting rights.

It also decided that the provision in the Public Official Election Act limiting the number of braille election notices for visually impaired persons to the same level as general election notices does not violate the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court announced on the 4th that it unanimously dismissed a constitutional complaint filed by Mr. Yoon, who claimed that he was deprived of his voting and equality rights by being prohibited from watching the 19th presidential election TV discussions and debates while he was a trainee at the Army Training Center in 2017, against his platoon leader at the time.

Mr. Yoon, who served as a professional research personnel from February 2016, received military training at the Army Training Center from April 20 to May 18, 2017. During this period, he was not allowed by his platoon leader to watch the TV debates and had no choice but to vote early, claiming a violation of his fundamental rights, and filed a constitutional complaint in July of the same year.

The Constitutional Court stated, “It is inevitable to impose control over military life within the necessary scope to achieve the purpose of education and training.”

It added, “Considering that military training for supplementary service personnel takes place over a short period of less than 30 days, it is necessary to create an environment during the military training period that allows trainees to focus solely on education and training.”

The Court noted that the platoon leader’s prohibition on watching TV had already ended and the 19th presidential election was over, so Mr. Yoon’s subjective interest in protecting his rights had already expired.

However, since similar situations could occur in the future and the Constitutional Court had not yet made a ruling on such cases, it recognized an objective interest in protecting constitutional order and, after substantive judgment, ruled the restriction constitutional.

Meanwhile, the Court also dismissed (upheld constitutionality) a constitutional complaint filed by a visually impaired person, Mr. Kim, who argued that Article 65, Paragraph 4 of the Public Official Election Act, which limits the number of braille election notices to the same level as general election notices, infringed on voting and equality rights.

Mr. Kim claimed that although the content is the same, braille requires 2.5 to 3 times more space, so limiting the number of braille election notices to the same level as general notices infringed on fundamental rights.

The Court stated, “If the number of braille election notices is not limited, the state may bear excessive costs,” and added, “The 2015 amendment to the related law, which increased the number of braille election notices while making the previously discretionary preparation of braille notices mandatory, can be seen as an improved legislative measure.”

Additionally, the Court dismissed a constitutional complaint filed by a hearing-impaired person, Mr. Ham, who claimed that Article 70, Paragraph 6 of the Public Official Election Act, which does not mandate sign language broadcasting for candidate speeches and debate broadcasts, infringed on voting rights.

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