On the morning of October 29, as a budget briefing was concluding at Seoul City Hall, Mayor Oh Se-hoon responded confidently to reporters' questions regarding the national investigation and impeachment efforts against Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. He criticized the ruling party for attempting to treat the judiciary as a tool of governance rather than recognizing it as a pillar of the separation of powers. The budget briefing quickly transformed into a political discussion about the limits of power.
Oh's responses reflected a shift in his political stance following his acquittal on October 23. With his political footing strengthened, he is no longer merely defending himself against attacks but is now questioning the principles of governance under President Lee Jae-myung and the Democratic Party. His increasing criticism suggests a commitment to holding the government accountable.
This change warrants evaluation. The influence of a prominent politician cannot be measured solely by titles or poll numbers. It is crucial to determine what checks are in place when power exceeds its limits. Oh raised the issue of judicial independence beyond just the personal situation of Chief Justice Cho, which adds weight to his statements compared to typical partisan exchanges.
The Democratic Party also has a clear obligation to respond. If there are significant wrongdoings by Chief Justice Cho that warrant impeachment, specific actions and evidence must be presented. Political dissatisfaction with certain rulings cannot justify replacing him. A majority in the National Assembly does not grant a mandate to subdue constitutional institutions. The greater the authority, the more rigorously it must be justified.
Chief Justice Cho is set to retire in June 2027. However, this does not exempt him from legitimate accountability during his remaining term. The grounds for impeachment must be clearly articulated; otherwise, it raises suspicions of political pressure to replace the head of the judiciary prematurely.
In his remarks, Oh characterized the ruling party's actions as 'anxiety, impatience, and obsession.' He diagnosed that fears of judicial repercussions following the president's departure have led to pressure on the judiciary. This is a political assessment. However, if the ruling party finds this evaluation unjust, they must first demonstrate that their proposed systems are unrelated to the personal interests of the president.
The criteria for judicial reform are straightforward. Can the same system be supported even when the regime changes and they become the opposition? Can independence be guaranteed for judges who issue unfavorable rulings? If responses falter in light of these questions, the justification for reform also weakens. If the system is for the people, it must function regardless of who is in power. Principles should not shift based on the circumstances of specific authorities.
Oh's criticisms gain traction here. As the Democratic Party seeks accountability from the judiciary, the public will scrutinize the purpose and standards of that accountability. Disputes over rulings should be settled through established procedures, and systemic flaws should be corrected based on universal standards. If political defeats are attributed to flaws in the entire judicial system, the independence of the courts will struggle to endure.
Of course, the same principles must apply to Mayor Oh. A politician who demands respect for his acquittal must also adhere to the law and evidence when faced with unfavorable judgments in other cases. When his criticisms maintain consistency, his political expansion gains credibility. A lasting legacy is built on adherence to principles rather than strong rhetoric.
Since his acquittal, Oh has clearly been expanding his political space. His responses at the budget briefing indicated his intention to act as both the mayor responsible for Seoul's governance and a politician who checks the concentration of power. This role is necessary. As the ruling party's power grows, the voice advocating for constitutional limits must also become louder. Democracy is upheld not by the goodwill of those in power but by checks that can halt that power.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.