A national audit hearing on the Legislative Affairs Office sparked a heated debate over the president's authority to recommend Supreme Court justices and the chief justice's obligation to act on such recommendations. The ruling Democratic Party argued that the president's request for recommendations is constitutionally valid, while the opposition People Power Party countered that there is no legal basis for this claim.
During the hearing on October 15, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Dong-a stated, "If the president requests a recommendation, the chief justice has a constitutional obligation to make that recommendation," asserting that failing to do so would constitute a dereliction of duty.
In response, Legislative Affairs Office head Cho Won-cheol agreed, stating, "It is contradictory to seek the National Assembly's consent when there is no intention to appoint someone."
Another Democratic Party member, Lee Sung-yoon, criticized Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae for declaring the president's recommendation request unconstitutional during the hearing, questioning whether the chief justice's failure to recommend a justice for 225 days is not also a dereliction of duty.
As Cho appeared to support the ruling party's stance, opposition members expressed their discontent. People Power Party lawmaker Kim Tae-kyu challenged, "Where is the legal or constitutional basis for the ability to request a recommendation?"
When Cho responded that it is a conclusion naturally derived from constitutional interpretation, Kim retorted, "It seems to be the unilateral interpretation of the Legislative Affairs Office head," adding, "Most people I know do not interpret it that way."
People Power Party lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun also argued that the recommendation request undermines the National Assembly's authority to consent to appointments, labeling the notion that the president's appointment power takes precedence as a dictatorial idea.
The two parties also clashed over the suspension of President Lee Jae-myung's trial, which has effectively been halted under Article 84 of the Constitution, which stipulates presidential immunity from prosecution. Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Han-kyu asked, "Is it correct for the court not to proceed with the trial against the president under Article 84?" to which Cho replied, "I agree."
Kim Tae-kyu took issue with Cho's earlier statement that the suspension of the trial reflects an 'overwhelming majority view.' He questioned, "Who among the many constitutional scholars has said that?"
In response, Cho explained, "All courts handling the president's case have interpreted that Article 84's impeachment includes not only indictment but also the maintenance of prosecution, leading to the suspension of all trials." He added, "The Criminal Procedure Act also stipulates that prosecution is initiated and conducted by the prosecutor," clarifying that the interpretation of impeachment encompasses both initiation and conduct of prosecution.
The opposition continued its offensive regarding the interpretation of laws related to constitutional amendments. People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo pointed out that Cho interpreted the possibility of President Lee's reappointment if the Constitution is amended, criticizing him by asking, "Do you still consider yourself Lee Jae-myung's attorney?" Cho is known to have been a classmate of President Lee at the Judicial Research and Training Institute and served as his attorney in the Daejang-dong case.
Cho clarified, "A president who proposes a constitutional amendment does not have the effect of extending their term or allowing reappointment," reiterating that he previously stated that term extensions or reappointments are not possible.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.