The strength of democracy is revealed in the acceptance of defeat. The attitude of those in power when they lose an election, are outvoted, or receive an unfavorable court ruling reflects their level of commitment to democratic principles.
The question now facing the Yoon Suk-yeol administration and the Democratic Party is whether they will acknowledge a judiciary capable of issuing inconvenient rulings.
The Democratic Party is pursuing a national investigation into Chief Justice Cho Hee-daeh. Amid ongoing impeachment claims, they intend to conduct this investigation first. However, changing the name of the procedure does not justify the purpose of exercising power. It must be clear whether the investigation aims to confirm illegal actions or if it is merely seeking justification for a predetermined conclusion to remove him. Investigations should lead to conclusions, not be tailored to fit them.
The Democratic Party cites my (Oh Se-hoon) acquittal in the appeal related to the Namtaegyun case as grounds for criticizing the judiciary. As a party involved in this case, I must clarify my stance. I do not believe the judiciary is always correct simply because a ruling favored me. Similarly, the Democratic Party should not claim the judiciary is wrong solely because a ruling was unfavorable to them.
If a ruling is deemed incorrect, it is essential to identify which factual determinations were wrong, what evidence was misinterpreted, and which legal principles were misunderstood. Disputes should be resolved through the legal procedures established by law. This is the language of a rule-of-law state.
If individual court decisions are politically attributed to the Chief Justice's responsibility without this explanation, how can any judge rule without fear of political repercussions in the future?
The Chief Justice does not dictate the conclusions of individual trials. If the Democratic Party holds the Chief Justice accountable for my acquittal, they must provide specific evidence of how he influenced the court. Without such evidence, their inquiries could be interpreted as pressure on judges to reach conclusions favored by the ruling party. Is this what the Democratic Party calls judicial reform?
The judiciary is also subject to criticism and oversight. The Chief Justice is not above the law. If there are specific allegations of illegal actions or abuse of power, they must be investigated. However, the authority to hold someone accountable comes with the obligation to provide evidence. The number of seats in the National Assembly does not substitute for this obligation.
A national investigation is a power granted to the National Assembly by the Constitution. Therefore, those exercising this power must first respect the boundaries set by the Constitution. The line between verifying judicial administration and politically judging the outcomes of trials must not be blurred.
Before engaging in a power struggle over whether to summon the Chief Justice to the National Assembly, the Democratic Party must present to the public what they intend to investigate and what facts they aim to uncover. If the only outcome is to criticize him for attending or not attending, what truth will the public gain?
The public does not need a live broadcast of conflicts between power institutions. They require evidence and explanations that clarify who misused their authority and how.
I ask President Yoon Suk-yeol and the Democratic Party: If another ruling party were to summon the Chief Justice to the National Assembly and discuss impeachment based on unfavorable rulings against them, would they accept it with the same attitude as today? If they plan to advocate for judicial independence then, they must uphold that principle now.
The principles of the Constitution should serve as a shield against power when in opposition and as a commitment to restrain oneself when in power. If the promise to uphold these principles is abandoned upon gaining power, they must reconsider their right to speak of the Constitution before the public.
If there is sufficient basis for impeachment, it must be presented according to the law. If it is lacking, that limitation must be acknowledged. New facts may be uncovered through a national investigation. However, merely initiating an investigation does not guarantee the legitimacy of impeachment. The applause of the Democratic Party's hardline supporters cannot replace constitutional requirements.
The courts in South Korea do not exist to fulfill the expectations of the ruling party. The public must be able to trust the judiciary to reject both guilty and not guilty verdicts that align with the desires of those in power.
Today, the Democratic Party must confront a more fundamental issue than the fate of Chief Justice Cho Hee-daeh. It is a question of whether they can respect the institutions that check their power even after gaining it. The public has never commanded them to rewrite court rulings or to intimidate judges they dislike.
The Democratic Party must pause. They need to recognize the weight of the authority they wield against the judiciary, as well as the weight of restraint they must bear.
The true measure of power is not merely reflected in the number of seats held. It is revealed when they accept unfavorable rulings and uphold the constitutional boundaries even in the exercise of their authority.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.