A. Background of the Case
In this case, the Constitutional Court held that Article 24 Sections 1 and 2 of the Mental Health Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Provisions on Involuntary Hospitalization”), which allow the involuntary hospitalization of a mentally ill person with the consent of two of his or her legal guardians and a diagnosis by a single neuropsychiatrist, are unconformable with the Constitution.
The petitioner was forcefully hospitalized with the consent of her two children and the diagnosis by a neuropsychiatrist approving her hospitalization. In response, the petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus under the Habeas Corpus Act with the trial court. While the petition was pending, the petitioner motioned for constitutional review of the provisions on involuntary hospitalization, and the court granted the motion and requested a constitutional review of the provisions.
B. Summary of the Decision
The Constitutional Court held that the provisions on involuntary hospitalization do not conform to the Constitution, for the following reasons.
As the involuntary hospitalization system stipulated in the Provisions on Involuntary Hospitalization restricts the physical freedom of a mentally ill person to a level on par with bodily confinement, it is necessary, in the process of hospitalization, to minimize infringement upon the physical freedom of such person and to prevent any chance of the system being misused or abused. Nonetheless, without prescribing procedures for an independent and neutral third party making the decision as to whether a mentally ill person requires treatment through involuntary hospitalization, the Mental Health Act makes it possible to hospitalize such person against his or her will with the consent of two of his or her legal guardians and a diagnosis by a single neuropsychiatrist. Moreover, the Act makes even long-term involuntary hospitalization possible if legal guardians and a medical institution have the same interests. Considering the aspects stated, the Provisions on Involuntary Hospitalization fail to exclude the possibility of the system being misused or abused, thereby infringing on the physical freedom of a mentally ill person.
However, if the Court delivers a decision of simple unconstitutionality for the provisions and thus the provisions immediately lose effect, a legal vacuum would occur, making it impossible to proceed with involuntary hospitalization even where deemed necessary. Therefore, the Court held that the provisions do not conform to the Constitution but are temporarily applicable.
C. Aftermath of the Case
There were cases where the Provisions on Involuntary Hospitalization had been abused, and in a particularly prominent case, two legal guardians forcibly hospitalized a mentally ill person in collusion with a neuropsychiatrist. Before the Court decision was delivered, the Mental Health Act was already wholly amended by Act No. 14224 on May 29, 2016, to the Act on the Improvement of Mental Health and the Support for Welfare Services for Mental Patients (which entered into force on May 30, 2017). Under this Act, procedural measures were prepared, which prevented any chance of the involuntary hospitalization system being misused or abused. More specifically, the Act introduced a diagnosis hospitalization system by strengthening the requirements and procedures for hospitalization by legal guardians; newly established a consent-based hospitalization system; stipulated the establishment of committees for examination as to the legitimacy of admissions to examine whether hospitalization or admission by legal guardians was legitimate; and required diagnoses by at least two neuropsychiatrists from different mental medical institutions in order to determine whether a mentally ill person was in need of continued hospitalization.