當傳統文化遇上性別平等──憲法解釋祭祀公業派下權性別平等案之啟示

When“Traditional Culture”Encounters“Gender Equality”: The Inspiration of Case on Gender Equality in the Qualification for uccessor of Ancestor Worship Guild

2023年，憲法法庭112年憲判字第1號判決宣告祭祀公業條例第4條第1項後段及第2項違憲，在本判決中，大法官進一步延伸處理司法院釋字第728號解釋理由書第3段中關於祭祀公業條例派下員資格之性別平等保障範圍。本文旨在分析以上有關祭祀公業條例與性別平等爭議之憲法解釋，特別是，這些憲法解釋探討傳統文化與性別平等之間的衝突。從實質平等和身分認同權之觀點，國家應承擔保護婦女之積極義務，落實實質的性別平等和身分認同權。可惜的是，釋字第728號解釋並沒有嚴肅看待傳統文化下女性及女系子孫受到的事實上不平等（包含間接歧視），雖然112年憲判字第1號判決從性別平等角度將祭祀公業條例中明確有歧視女性及女系子孫之規定，宣告違憲，但大法官並沒有一併處理釋字第728號解釋所遺留下之上述問題，以及女性之家族及身分認同權。這篇文章旨在解決以上問題。

In 2023, the Taiwan Constitutional Court (hereinafter“TCC”) issued TCC Judgment 112-Hsien-Pan-1, concluding the Second Sentence of Article 4, Paragraph 1, of the Act for Ancestor Worship Guild (hereinafter the“AAWG”) and Paragraph 2 of the same article are unconstitutional. The court further expanded the scope of gender equality protection regarding the qualifications of ancestor worship guild successors, building upon its previous decision in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 728 (hereinafter“No. 728”). This article aims to analyze the constitutional interpretations of the AAWG in relation to gender equality, particularly exploring the conflict between traditional culture and gender equality. From the perspective of substantive equality and the right to one’s own identity, the government should bear a positive obligation to protect women in order to fully implement substantive gender equality and the right to identity. Unfortunately, No. 728 did not seriously address the factual inequalities faced by women and female offspring in traditional culture, including indirect discrimination within ancestor worship guilds. Although 112-Hsien Pan-1 declared the discriminatory provisions of the AAWG unconstitutional from a gender equality perspective, it failed to resolve issues left by No. 728, including women’s rights to family and identity recognition. This article aims to address these unresolved issues.