In its April 10 rendering of Interpretation No. 452 of the ROC Constitution, the council ruled that the provision must be abolished within a year.

Along these lines, an amendment to bring about equality between the sexes in regard to designation of legal residence is already undergoing the review process in the Legislature.

Sponsored by Legislator Yeh Chu-lan, the amendment has already passed a first reading in the lawmaking body. Yeh said she will make it a priority for the revisions to be passed during the Legislature's current session.

"The Legislature will finish work on the revisions as soon as possible to help improve gender equality in Taiwan society," she remarked.

Article 1002 of the ROC's Civil Code stipulates that married women shall register their husbands' designated places of residence as their legal domiciles as well.

But according to the recent constitutional interpretation, wives in Taiwan no longer have to list the residences of their husbands as their legal domiciles.

The council's ruling thus opens a door to women enjoying the freedom to establish their own places of legal residence.

The council determined that the existing provision is contrary to the spirit of Article 7 of the Constitution. This article guarantees all ROC citizens equal treatment under the law, regardless of their sex, religion, race, class or party affiliation.

The interpretation was made at the request of a female citizen named Chen Li-feng.

She had asked the council in September 1996 to clarify whether a previous Taiwan High Court verdict on Article 1002 violated the Constitution. The case involved concerns over her legal residence.

In their April 10 decision, the 15 participating Grand Justices unanimously agreed that the Civil Code stipulation regarding a wife's legal domicile is indeed unconstitutional.

"The regulation does not consider a wife's freedom to choose a residence," the council said in its ruling.

"The abolition of the regulation is in line with trends in today's society, where many women have careers, making it sometimes necessary for couples to live separately," the justices said.

Women's rights advocates in Taiwan hailed the ruling as a step forward on the road to achieving equality between the sexes.

At an April 11 press conference, the Taipei-based Awakening Foundation noted that the interpretation has corrected a previous injustice and conforms to modern values.

Despite declaring Article 1002 unconstitutional, the council emphasized that even if a husband and wife do not establish a joint legal residence in Taiwan, society compels them to live together as a means of promoting wholesome family values.

"The responsibility of mutual obligation should still be carried out," said Wang Ju-hsuan, vice chairwoman of the Awakening Foundation.

In the past, Taiwan men often used the Civil Code provision as a tactic for obtaining divorces from their wives.

In such cases, the husbands who secretly sought divorces would set their wives up in other residences. Then, they would sue their wives on the grounds of malicious abandonment.

"It was not uncommon for women to leave home after being abused by their husbands, only to learn afterwards that divorce suits were being filed by the abusive husbands," Wang said.