Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae Defends Appointment Authority

Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae stated that the appointment recommendation for Supreme Court justices fulfills all constitutional rights and obligations. He emphasized that the National Assembly and the President must respect the Chief Justice's authority in response to the Blue House's request for reappointment.

During a national audit of the Supreme Court held by the National Assembly's Judiciary Committee on the morning of October 6, Jo remarked, "Just as the Chief Justice cannot interfere in the National Assembly's consent process or the President's appointment process, neither can the National Assembly or the President interfere in the Chief Justice's recommendation."

Citing Article 104 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the President appoints justices based on the Chief Justice's recommendation and the National Assembly's consent, he argued that any interference by the National Assembly in the Chief Justice's recommendation is unconstitutional and undermines the separation of powers and judicial independence.

Regarding prior consultations with the President about the appointment of justices, Jo noted, "There is no constitutional basis for this, but the Chief Justice has voluntarily cooperated for a swift and smooth appointment process." He stressed that not consulting does not pose any constitutional issues.

Jo explained that he had been in discussions with the Blue House but proceeded with the recommendation without reaching a final agreement. He received a request for reappointment but found that the reasons and constitutional basis for not proceeding with the existing candidates and recommending new ones were not clearly stated.

He stated, "It was difficult to understand the intent of the document based solely on its content," adding that he believed there would be challenges in proceeding with subsequent steps under these circumstances. However, he expressed regret over the prolonged vacancy of the Supreme Court justices, saying, "I apologize to the public for causing concern and will work to resolve the vacancy as soon as possible."

As a general witness, Jo refused to take an oath and testify, citing the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. Nevertheless, he addressed various inquiries regarding his exercise of recommendation authority and related allegations.

In response to allegations that the judiciary cooperated during the emergency martial law in December 1980, he firmly denied any such cooperation, stating, "We did not cooperate at all with the martial law." He explained that he received reports about personnel dispatch requests from the martial law command but instructed, "Do not send them, and do not provide the list, as it is unconstitutional."

He also dismissed claims of a passive response to the Seoul Western District Court riot, asserting, "We did not remain silent or neglect our duties." He noted that the head of the court administration issued a statement on-site, and he visited the scene afterward to listen to the concerns of those involved and take necessary actions. He mentioned the issuance of a statement through an emergency Supreme Court meeting and the filing of damage claims against those involved.

Regarding allegations of purchasing expensive alcohol during official business meals, he stated, "I have never seen the card" and added, "I did not drink a drop of alcohol." While he claimed to be unaware of the budget allocation or meal expenses, he expressed hope that the administration would rectify such issues in the future, apologizing to the public.

On the issue of bonuses for Supreme Court justices, he maintained that there is a separate official responsible for expenditures and that he does not involve himself in spending decisions.

When asked by progressive party lawmaker Son Sol if he aspired to be "the second Yoon Seok-yeol," Jo responded, "Such remarks are deeply insulting and disheartening."