Ruling party advances court bills that could weaken judicial checks
The ruling Democratic Party of Korea reportedly plans to push through what it calls “three judicial reform bills” during February’s provisional session of the National Assembly.
On Wednesday, it moved ahead with one of the measures — a proposed revision to the Constitutional Court Act — at the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee.
The bill would allow plaintiffs or defendants to challenge Supreme Court rulings by appealing to the Constitutional Court.
While appeals serve to protect fundamental rights, the bill would allow decisions rendered final by the Supreme Court under the current three-tier trial system to be retried — and potentially overturned — by the Constitutional Court.
This would, in effect, create a de facto four-tier judicial system, elevating the Constitutional Court above the Supreme Court. The bill would undermine the very foundation of the three-tier trial system and run counter to the Constitution. It is persuasive to argue that this issue should be addressed not by revising the Constitutional Court Act, but with a constitutional amendment.
The proposed revision to the Court Organization Act, another judicial reform bill the party advanced alongside it that day, calls for increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 14 to 26.
The ruling party argues that expanding the Supreme Court would help expedite delayed appellate proceedings. However, if the increase comes without a corresponding rise in the total number of judges, delays in first- and second-instance trials are likely to worsen. If 12 additional Supreme Court justices are appointed, roughly 100 senior judges would reportedly need to be reassigned to the Supreme Court as research judges to support them.
Similar concerns arise regarding the constitutional appeal system.
If the Constitutional Court were to review multiple Supreme Court rulings, trial periods would lengthen and litigation costs would inevitably grow.
In the end, it would be the socially and economically vulnerable — those unable to shoulder mounting legal expenses — who suffer most, as Chief Justice Jo Hee-de expressed concern.
The surge in cases could effectively cripple the nine-justice Constitutional Court’s capacity to carry out its duties.
An even more sensitive issue is that the bills are not unrelated to President Lee Jae Myung’s judicial risks. His trials were suspended following his election as president.
If amended, the Court Organization Act would allow Lee to appoint up to 22 Supreme Court justices during his presidential term.
He could completely reshape the current composition of the Supreme Court bench that remanded his election law violation case to the high court with a ruling effectively affirming his guilt.
The revised act could influence the outcome of his trial if it resumes after he leaves office. Should a constitutional appeal system be introduced, he could turn to the Constitutional Court if the Supreme Court rules against him.
Even if this may be an alarmist view, the judicial system must be designed through procedures fair enough to dispel even such suspicions. In the past, judicial reform issues were typically addressed through a special joint committee comprising both ruling and opposition parties.
If any government were to drastically reconfigure the Supreme Court bench, accusations of partisan bias in appointments would be all but certain. Under such circumstances, the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power would be severely undermined.
In December, the Democratic Party moved its proposed amendment to the Criminal Act through the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. The bill would make it a criminal offense for judges and prosecutors to allegedly "distort" the law by misapplying or misinterpreting it in their decisions.
Ignoring the Supreme Court’s warnings of serious repercussions, the party is pushing ahead with the three bills that many see as an attempt to bring the judiciary under its control.
Expanding the Supreme Court and establishing a constitutional appeal system are momentous changes that would redefine the very architecture of the judicial system. The party should not proceed with the bills unilaterally without political and social consensus.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
