Constitutional Court Rules "Provision Requiring Only Female Public Officials to Register In-Laws' Property Unconstitutional"... Article 2 of the Public Officials Ethics Act Supplement

Constitutional Court Grand Bench.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the supplementary provision requiring only female registrants to register the property of their spouse's direct ascendants, while excluding the spouse's direct ascendants from the property registration obligation of public officials subject to property disclosure, is unconstitutional.

On the 30th, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided the unconstitutionality in a case referred by the Seoul Administrative Court regarding Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of the Public Officials Ethics Act.

Judge A, a female judge, received a caution (warning) from the Supreme Court Public Officials Ethics Committee in 2017 for not registering her spouse's direct ascendants' property while filing her 2016 regular property change report, registering only her own direct ascendants' property.

Before the 2009 amendment, Article 4 (Property Subject to Registration) Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 3 of the Public Officials Ethics Act stipulated that "when the registrant is married, the property of the spouse's direct ascendants and descendants" must be registered, requiring male public officials to register the property of their father-in-law and mother-in-law, and female public officials to register the property of their parents-in-law.

However, when the law was amended in 2009 to exclude the spouse's direct ascendants' property from the registration obligation, Article 2 (Transitional Measures) of the supplementary provisions included a transitional rule stating, "Married female registrants who registered property according to the previous regulations at the time of enforcement of this Act shall continue to follow the previous regulations despite the amendment of Article 4 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 3," thereby requiring only married female registrants who had previously registered their parents-in-law's property to continue registering it.

Ultimately, Judge A filed an administrative lawsuit requesting the cancellation of the Supreme Court Public Officials Ethics Committee's warning and petitioned the court to refer the supplementary provision to the Constitutional Court for a constitutional review.

The Constitutional Court stated, "Article 11 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on gender, and Article 36 Paragraph 1 mandates equal treatment of both sexes in marriage and family life. Therefore, when judging whether the supplementary provision in question violates the principle of equality, a strict scrutiny standard applying the proportionality principle must be used."

It continued, "Although the amended Public Officials Ethics Act was enacted reflecting the reflective consideration that the pre-amendment provision was based on discriminatory perceptions of men and women in marital relationships, the supplementary provision in question requires some married female registrants to continue following the previous discriminatory regulation simply because they had already registered property under the pre-amendment provision."

The Constitutional Court added, "Requiring only married female registrants, unlike married male registrants, to register the property of their spouse's direct ascendants fosters erroneous perceptions of women's social status, establishes a dichotomous discriminatory structure between the husband's and wife's families in family relations, and if extended to social relations, may create a social atmosphere of male dominance and female disparagement."

It further stated, "This directly violates the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on gender and proclaims equality of both sexes in marriage and family life, and its purpose cannot be justified. Therefore, the supplementary provision in question violates the principle of equality."

A Constitutional Court official commented, "This decision is significant in clearly affirming that discrimination based on gender is strictly prohibited and that a system contrary to the Constitution, which prohibits gender discrimination and proclaims equality of both sexes in marriage and family life, cannot be justified merely for procedural convenience or minimizing administrative costs."

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