The conflict over the authority regarding Supreme Court nominations between the Blue House and the Supreme Court will be a key issue during the upcoming National Assembly inspection. As both sides clash over whether the President's refusal to appoint leads to an obligation for the Chief Justice to re-nominate, attention is focused on whether Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae will provide justifications for maintaining the nomination and ways to resolve the deadlock.
According to legal circles and the National Assembly on October 5, Chief Justice Cho submitted a written opinion on October 2 to the National Assembly's Judiciary Committee, stating that he found it difficult to respond to requests for testimony regarding the exercise of the nomination authority, which he views as an independent constitutional power. He argued that such requests contradict the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence.
The conflict began over the nomination of Son Bong-ki, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court. On August 18, Chief Justice Cho nominated Son as the successor to former Justice Noh Tae-ak. However, the Blue House demanded a re-nomination on August 28, claiming that the nomination was made without substantial consultation with the President.
In response, Chief Justice Cho rejected the re-nomination request on September 22, stating, "I cannot find specific constitutional grounds or reasons to justify the request for re-nomination." The following day, he clarified that he would need clear grounds and reasons presented before proceeding with any follow-up procedures, rather than indicating that there were formal defects in the Blue House's official document.
The Blue House has made it clear that it will not appoint the nominee, asserting that the re-nomination request is a necessary follow-up procedure. They argue that if the President must simply follow the Chief Justice's nomination, it would reduce the constitutional appointment power to a mere formality.
The crux of the matter lies in the relationship between the President's authority to refuse an appointment and the Chief Justice's obligation to re-nominate. Article 104, Section 2 of the Constitution states, "Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President with the consent of the National Assembly upon the nomination of the Chief Justice." While the article delineates the powers of nomination, consent, and appointment, it does not specify grounds for refusal or procedures for re-nomination.
Thus, it is essential to distinguish whether the President has the authority to refuse an appointment and whether, in such a case, the Chief Justice must withdraw the existing nomination and propose a different candidate. The Blue House demands a new nomination following the refusal, while the Supreme Court insists that grounds for changing the nomination must be provided, leaving the process stalled.
The nature of prior consultations is also a point of contention. The constitutional provision regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices does not explicitly require prior consultation between the President and the Chief Justice. Therefore, both sides need to clarify whether the lack of substantial consultation affects the validity of the nomination or is merely a matter of coordination for exercising appointment authority.
During the National Assembly inspection, there is likely to be debate over whether the exercise of the nomination authority falls under the oversight of the National Assembly. Chief Justice Cho maintains that it is inappropriate to disclose the specifics of the discussions with the President. In contrast, the Democratic Party argues that since this matter pertains to judicial administration rather than a specific case, it should be explained to the National Assembly.
The issues of responding to inquiries as a witness and clarifying positions as a head of an institution are separate matters. On September 28, Chief Justice Cho indicated that he would address questions related to the re-nomination during the National Assembly inspection. There is speculation that he may provide explanations in his opening or closing remarks as the head of the institution, but the specific format remains unconfirmed.
Since the retirement of former Justice Noh in March, the vacancy has extended beyond seven months. The structure indicates that merely exercising either the nomination or appointment authority is insufficient to complete the process. The key question for this National Assembly inspection will be whether Chief Justice Cho can explain the legal basis for rejecting the re-nomination while also indicating whether there is room for further consultation with the President regarding the existing nomination.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.