The Democratic Party is rapidly moving to finalize the legislative process for amendments to the criminal procedure law, including the abolition of prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights, within three days. Meanwhile, the People Power Party finds itself powerless to respond. Since the start of the 22nd National Assembly, the People Power Party has lost its negotiating power due to a lack of seats and has resorted to filibustering various contentious bills, but with little success.
According to political sources on July 29, the amendments to the criminal procedure law and the National Assembly Act, which the Democratic Party plans to introduce on July 30, are expected to pass the plenary session without difficulty after being forcibly processed following the conclusion of unlimited debate. The criminal procedure law amendment focuses on abolishing the supplementary investigation rights of the prosecution, while the National Assembly Act amendment aims to shorten the fast-track review period from a maximum of 330 days to 90 days.
The People Power Party has attempted to resist by holding press conferences and protests at the subcommittee or full committee stages, as well as demanding the formation of an agenda coordination committee, but these efforts have proven insufficient to block the bills' passage through the committee. As a last resort, the People Power Party plans to request unlimited debate on the two bills to obstruct their progress to the plenary session, but the Democratic Party is expected to counter this with a motion to conclude the debate.
In fact, during the nearly two years of the 22nd National Assembly, there have been 28 instances where the conclusion of unlimited debate was forced through voting. While it is difficult for the Democratic Party to pass a conclusion motion on its own, it can secure a three-fifths majority by collaborating with other progressive parties, such as the Justice Party. The Democratic Party has used this method to push through various contentious bills, including special investigation laws, three judicial laws (the establishment of a crime distortion law, the introduction of judicial review, and the increase of Supreme Court justices), and laws regarding the prosecution and the high-profile investigation agency.
In this context, the Democratic Party is also preparing to further amend the National Assembly Act to strengthen the requirements for unlimited debate. The proposed amendment would lower the threshold for introducing a conclusion motion from one-third of the total members to one-fifth and allow the National Assembly Speaker to suspend discussions if the number of present members falls below the quorum (one-fifth of the total members).
Experts have expressed concern that the ruling party's dominance is limiting the ability of minority parties to voice their opinions within the system, effectively silencing the opposition. They warn that the absence of a minimum right to dissent in a National Assembly that should be based on consensus could lead to a decline in democracy.
Political commentator Choi Yo-han criticized the situation in a conversation with Aju Economy, stating, "As society diversifies, we need to hear more voices from a wider range of people. The current National Assembly has reached a point where the majority party is perceived as engaging in a form of 'parliamentary dictatorship.'" He added, "Without institutional mechanisms to amplify diverse voices, only the voices of the first and second parties are loud. Both parties currently lack political power and need to exercise it effectively."
According to political sources on July 29, the amendments to the criminal procedure law and the National Assembly Act, which the Democratic Party plans to introduce on July 30, are expected to pass the plenary session without difficulty after being forcibly processed following the conclusion of unlimited debate. The criminal procedure law amendment focuses on abolishing the supplementary investigation rights of the prosecution, while the National Assembly Act amendment aims to shorten the fast-track review period from a maximum of 330 days to 90 days.
The People Power Party has attempted to resist by holding press conferences and protests at the subcommittee or full committee stages, as well as demanding the formation of an agenda coordination committee, but these efforts have proven insufficient to block the bills' passage through the committee. As a last resort, the People Power Party plans to request unlimited debate on the two bills to obstruct their progress to the plenary session, but the Democratic Party is expected to counter this with a motion to conclude the debate.
In fact, during the nearly two years of the 22nd National Assembly, there have been 28 instances where the conclusion of unlimited debate was forced through voting. While it is difficult for the Democratic Party to pass a conclusion motion on its own, it can secure a three-fifths majority by collaborating with other progressive parties, such as the Justice Party. The Democratic Party has used this method to push through various contentious bills, including special investigation laws, three judicial laws (the establishment of a crime distortion law, the introduction of judicial review, and the increase of Supreme Court justices), and laws regarding the prosecution and the high-profile investigation agency.
In this context, the Democratic Party is also preparing to further amend the National Assembly Act to strengthen the requirements for unlimited debate. The proposed amendment would lower the threshold for introducing a conclusion motion from one-third of the total members to one-fifth and allow the National Assembly Speaker to suspend discussions if the number of present members falls below the quorum (one-fifth of the total members).
Experts have expressed concern that the ruling party's dominance is limiting the ability of minority parties to voice their opinions within the system, effectively silencing the opposition. They warn that the absence of a minimum right to dissent in a National Assembly that should be based on consensus could lead to a decline in democracy.
Political commentator Choi Yo-han criticized the situation in a conversation with Aju Economy, stating, "As society diversifies, we need to hear more voices from a wider range of people. The current National Assembly has reached a point where the majority party is perceived as engaging in a form of 'parliamentary dictatorship.'" He added, "Without institutional mechanisms to amplify diverse voices, only the voices of the first and second parties are loud. Both parties currently lack political power and need to exercise it effectively."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.