The ruling and opposition parties clashed over Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's decision to skip a National Assembly inquiry regarding the recommendation of a Supreme Court justice. The ruling Democratic Party argued that President Lee Jae-myung's request for a justice recommendation is valid, while the opposition People Power Party countered that it constitutes 'abuse of power.' The two sides also disagreed on the Chief Justice's obligation to appear before the National Assembly.
On August 30, members of the Democratic Party's Legislative and Judiciary Committee held a press conference at the National Assembly, asserting that "the Blue House's request for a recommendation is valid" and emphasized that "one of the remaining three candidates, excluding Son Bong-ki, should be recommended."
They criticized Cho's submission of a statement citing the separation of powers as a reason for not attending the inquiry. Kim Seung-won, the ruling party's committee secretary, pointed out that "the committee voted to summon witnesses under Article 129 of the National Assembly Act" and accused Cho of "manipulating the law" by referencing Article 121 of the National Assembly Act.
In contrast, People Power Party lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun stated that "according to Article 62, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice has no obligation to appear before the National Assembly" and explained that the lack of obligation should frame the interpretation of Article 129 of the National Assembly Act. Former judge Na Kyung-won of the People Power Party went further, claiming that "the President exercised a power that does not exist in the law regarding the recommendation. This is a clear abuse of power and grounds for impeachment," adding that "this is not a separation of powers but a dictatorship of unified powers."
As Cho Hee-dae shows discomfort with the National Assembly by refusing to attend the committee, attention is focused on what choice he will make. According to legal and political circles, Cho's options in response to the unprecedented 'rejection of recommendation' are largely twofold: either recommend from the existing candidate pool or opt for a new recommendation committee. Earlier in January, the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee had recommended four candidates, including Son Bong-ki, Kim Min-ki, a judge at the Suwon High Court, Park Soon-young, a judge at the Seoul High Court, and Yoon Seong-sik, a senior judge at the Seoul High Court.
If Cho selects one candidate from the existing pool for re-recommendation, the conflict with the Blue House is expected to be resolved relatively quickly. Recently, it has been reported that the Blue House is considering Judge Kim as a candidate; however, there is a prevailing view within and outside the Supreme Court that this will be difficult to accept due to concerns over political neutrality and the substantive guarantee of the recommendation power following the expansion of the Supreme Court's composition.
Ultimately, there is speculation that Cho may form a new recommendation committee based on the existing committee dissolution provisions in the Court Organization Act. However, this would require a lengthy process for the National Assembly's personnel hearing, potentially reigniting discussions of impeachment. A precedent exists from 2012 when Supreme Court Justice nominee Kim Byeong-hwa voluntarily withdrew, leading the Supreme Court to reconstitute the recommendation committee, resulting in a three-month delay for the National Assembly's personnel hearing.
On August 30, members of the Democratic Party's Legislative and Judiciary Committee held a press conference at the National Assembly, asserting that "the Blue House's request for a recommendation is valid" and emphasized that "one of the remaining three candidates, excluding Son Bong-ki, should be recommended."
They criticized Cho's submission of a statement citing the separation of powers as a reason for not attending the inquiry. Kim Seung-won, the ruling party's committee secretary, pointed out that "the committee voted to summon witnesses under Article 129 of the National Assembly Act" and accused Cho of "manipulating the law" by referencing Article 121 of the National Assembly Act.
In contrast, People Power Party lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun stated that "according to Article 62, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice has no obligation to appear before the National Assembly" and explained that the lack of obligation should frame the interpretation of Article 129 of the National Assembly Act. Former judge Na Kyung-won of the People Power Party went further, claiming that "the President exercised a power that does not exist in the law regarding the recommendation. This is a clear abuse of power and grounds for impeachment," adding that "this is not a separation of powers but a dictatorship of unified powers."
As Cho Hee-dae shows discomfort with the National Assembly by refusing to attend the committee, attention is focused on what choice he will make. According to legal and political circles, Cho's options in response to the unprecedented 'rejection of recommendation' are largely twofold: either recommend from the existing candidate pool or opt for a new recommendation committee. Earlier in January, the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee had recommended four candidates, including Son Bong-ki, Kim Min-ki, a judge at the Suwon High Court, Park Soon-young, a judge at the Seoul High Court, and Yoon Seong-sik, a senior judge at the Seoul High Court.
If Cho selects one candidate from the existing pool for re-recommendation, the conflict with the Blue House is expected to be resolved relatively quickly. Recently, it has been reported that the Blue House is considering Judge Kim as a candidate; however, there is a prevailing view within and outside the Supreme Court that this will be difficult to accept due to concerns over political neutrality and the substantive guarantee of the recommendation power following the expansion of the Supreme Court's composition.
Ultimately, there is speculation that Cho may form a new recommendation committee based on the existing committee dissolution provisions in the Court Organization Act. However, this would require a lengthy process for the National Assembly's personnel hearing, potentially reigniting discussions of impeachment. A precedent exists from 2012 when Supreme Court Justice nominee Kim Byeong-hwa voluntarily withdrew, leading the Supreme Court to reconstitute the recommendation committee, resulting in a three-month delay for the National Assembly's personnel hearing.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.