Fourteen grand justices were present for the unanimous ruling on Sept. 23.

The justices ruled, in Explanation No. 365, that ROC Civil Code Article 1089 shall be amended over the next two years and at the end of that period made void.

They determined that Article 1089 is in clear violation of Article 7 of the ROC Constitution, which states that all ROC citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, race, class or party affiliation, are equal before the law.

In addition, justices ruled that 1089 was also in violation of Article 9 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution, which calls for the protection of the dignity of women and the elimination of sexual discrimination.

Government agencies and private citizens can call on the Council of Grand Justices to interpret the Constitution and ensure unity among laws and ordinances.

The review of Article 1089's constitutionality came about when Liang Chiu-jung, a Taiwan woman embroiled in a domestic dispute, formally approached the council. She filed for an interpretation of the article after her husband, who had an extramarital affair, forced her to move out of the home due to a child dispute.

Analysts suggested that the decision could cause a domino effect to bring about the amendment of other Civil Code regulations, particularly those related to parents exercising their child's rights. It could also affect the Law of Nationality.

Article 1089 states that the father and mother shall jointly exercise their rights and assume their duties in regard to a minor, unless the child is otherwise provided for by law. The father, however, is given the final say-so if both parents disagree on a children's rights issue.

In the past, Taiwan judges have ruled accordingly and favored the father's wishes in related conflicts.

Women's rights advocates have strongly objected to Article 1089 and have repeatedly called for it to be amended. This past July, 144 lawmakers signed a petition circulated by Hsieh Chi-ta, a woman New Party legislator, proposing that the article be sent to the council for interpretation.

In their Sept. 23 explanation, justices stated that the article was issued in 1930 in accordance with traditional customs, and thus does not serve the needs of society today.

Nowadays men and women have equal opportunity in education and employment and parents should also have equal rights regarding their children, the justices said. The article, they added, should be revised to reflect this in the best interest of children.

The ruling added that in situations where parents cannot reach a consensus on how to exercise their child's legal rights, the decision should fall into the hands of grandparents, a meeting of family relatives or a family court.

The ideal situation in a custody case is when parents negotiate an agreement. But if this is not possible, the final decision should be left up to a civil court, the justices stated.

Legislator Hsieh said she was pleased with the ruling. She added that she intends to continue pressing for other out-of-date regulations in the Civil Code to be changed.

Po Lan-chih, secretary-general of the Awakening Foundation and a leading women's rights activist in Taiwan, called the ruling "belated justice" because the article has been used as a legal reference for more than 60 years.

Po's foundation sees many other regulations besides Article 1089 as discriminatory. It points to laws that grant custody to the father in a divorce case, require a woman to use the husband's family name, regulate that a wife must accept the husband's domicile, and mandate the husband as manager of the couple's assets.

Po said her foundation and a private association of divorced women have drafted new versions of civil laws related to the family for review by the Legislature.

Following the grand justices' ruling, the Ministry of Justice said it will amend certain regulations of the Civil Code to meet the equality requirements of Explanation No. 365.

The ministry also plans to establish an ad hoc committee to study some 20 regulations that women's rights advocates claim violate the principle of equality between the sexes. Before the amendment process begins, the ministry will hold public opinion polls as well as public hearings to fully understand Taiwan citizens' views.

The ministry plans to get to work on the matter next July, due to the current heavy workload for amending other Civil Code articles.

Whether the ministry will change Article 1089 first or revise all discriminatory laws at the same time will most likely be left to Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou to decide.

At a Sept. 24 press conference, women's rights groups, legislators and lawyers expressed dissatisfaction that a two-year grace period has been allowed to the now-deemed-unconstitutional article.

They pointed out that many women will continue to be victimized during the period until Article 1089 is rescinded. More specifically, they insisted that the new ruling be applied immediately to the case of Liang, who had filed for the interpretation.

They also urged the grand justices not to make any new rulings that go against equality between the sexes in the two years before the article is made void.

Critics of the two-year buffer period strongly point out the irony of allowing Article 1089 to remain in existence even though the justices have ruled that it is unconstitutional.