National Assembly Debates President Lee's Trial Suspension Amid Controversy

The ruling and opposition parties clashed on October 16 during a National Assembly Legislative Judiciary Committee hearing regarding President Lee Jae-myung's trial suspension and the controversy surrounding Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's rejection of Supreme Court justice recommendations.

The People Power Party argued during the hearing, which focused on the Seoul High Court and the Seoul Central District Court, that the suspension of President Lee's election law trial and the Daejang-dong case constituted "dereliction of duty" by the judiciary.

Representative Kim Tae-kyu stated, "There is no trial suspension system in our country, yet President Lee's election law case is on hold, citing 'estimated dates.' This is either dereliction of duty by the court or abuse of litigation authority."

Representative Kwak Gyu-taek pointed out, "The Criminal Procedure Act specifies two reasons for suspending trial proceedings: when the defendant is mentally incapacitated or ill, and decisions must be made after consulting the prosecutor and defense attorney. However, there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Act allowing an individual judge to decide to suspend the trial simply because the defendant is the president. This is a violation of the Criminal Procedure Act." He added that if a suspension is requested based on mental incapacity or illness, or under Article 84 of the Constitution, a constitutional petition should be filed stating, 'Since I became president, please suspend the trial.'

In contrast, the Democratic Party rebutted that the suspension of the president's trial is a legitimate procedure under the Constitution and urged an end to what they termed as attempts to hinder the president.

Representative Kim Han-kyu remarked, "According to Article 84 of the Constitution, unless the president has committed treason or insurrection, it is appropriate for the courts to refrain from prosecution and to suspend ongoing trials to allow the sitting president to fulfill their duties in the public interest." He suggested that the People Power Party would likely continue to advocate for the resumption of trials over the next five years, urging the courts not to be swayed by such political claims.

Article 84 of the Constitution states that 'the president shall not be subject to criminal prosecution during their term, except in cases of treason or insurrection.'

Democratic Party Representative Park Gyu-taek explained, "The Constitution prohibits prosecution against a sitting president. The Criminal Procedure Act interprets the concept of prosecution, stating that the filing of charges is considered prosecution, while the conduct of the case is termed as prosecution. This encompasses both the filing of charges and the trial process."

Democratic Party lawmaker Seo Young-kyo, who chairs the committee, stated, "Prosecution leads to trial, so the constitutional provision implies that everything is suspended. It would be best to clarify today that hindering the president while they are performing national duties is unacceptable."

The parties also continued their tensions over Chief Justice Cho's rejection of Supreme Court justice recommendations. Democratic Party Representative Kim Dong-a pointed out, "When there are vacancies in the Supreme Court, it ultimately harms the public." Meanwhile, People Power Party Representative Yoon Sang-hyun questioned, "The Chief Justice stated that he could not find constitutional grounds or specific reasons for the recommendations, yet the Blue House claims that 'the president's appointment power is paramount, thus supporting the Chief Justice's recommendation authority.' Is this appropriate in a free democratic republic?"