Constitutional Court upholds restrictions on disability activity support after age 65; two justices dissent

[Financial News] The Constitutional Court has ruled that a former provision allowing only people who had received disability activity-support benefits before age 65 to apply for the disability activity-support system after reaching age 65, subject to certain conditions, does not violate the Constitution. A dissenting opinion, however, said it was unjust to exclude from support people who had disabilities but were unable to use the system.
According to legal sources on the 26th, the Constitutional Court ruled on the 22nd that Article 5(2) of the former Act on Activity Support for Persons with Disabilities was constitutional, in a 7-2 decision in a constitutional review of statutes.
The issue was whether setting different eligibility requirements for older people with disabilities based on whether they had received activity-support benefits before age 65 violated the principle of equality.
The disability activity-support system is designed to help people with disabilities who face difficulties in daily life and social activities live independently. The general rule is that people receive benefits under Long-Term Care Insurance from age 65, but some exceptions are allowed to address the reduction in support that can occur when existing activity-support beneficiaries switch to long-term care benefits.
The case began when Person A, who has a severe intellectual disability, applied for activity-support benefits after turning 65 and was denied. At the time, A was receiving long-term care benefits and challenged the age-based eligibility restriction in an administrative lawsuit, requesting a referral for constitutional review during the proceedings. The court partly granted the request, bringing the case before the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court’s majority found a reasonable basis for the legislative purpose of distinguishing between existing beneficiaries and those who had not received benefits.
The measure, it said, took into account that people with disabilities who had been receiving activity-support benefits could see their support reduced when they turned 65 and switched to long-term care benefits, making it difficult to maintain their previous independent living arrangements.
The Court also considered the situation of people who had disabilities but were unable to use the activity-support system before age 65 because of circumstances beyond their control.
While acknowledging that this group needed support, the Court found it difficult to conclude that the criterion limiting eligibility to existing beneficiaries was itself excessively arbitrary.
The Court’s view was that identifying and supporting people with disabilities who have been unable to access the system is an issue for the state and local governments to address by improving their system for identifying eligible recipients of social security benefits. It held that their exclusion alone was not enough to call into question the legitimacy of the current age-based benefits system.
Justices Jeong Gye-seon and Ma Eunhyeok, however, dissented, arguing that the provision violated the principle of equality. The two justices pointed out that people with disabilities who had not even had the opportunity to use the system might have an even greater need for support.
Existing beneficiaries had maintained a certain level of independent living through activity-support benefits until age 65, whereas people with disabilities who could not access the system may already have faced considerable hardship because they had not received the support they needed.
They argued that distinguishing eligibility for support in old age solely on the basis of past benefit history fails to adequately reflect actual support needs.
The ruling is also related to the Constitutional Court’s previous decisions on age limits for the disability activity-support system. In 2020, the Court ruled that a provision restricting applications for activity-support benefits on the grounds of age-related illness was nonconforming to the Constitution, even for people under 65. Eligibility was subsequently expanded through a 2022 amendment to the law.
This time, while upholding as constitutional the different treatment based on benefit history before age 65, the Court left unresolved how to close the support gap for older people with disabilities who were unable to access the system.
[email protected] Yoo Seon-jun Reporter