Lee Heon, Recommendation Committee Member for the Corruption Investigation Office Chief, Says "'Abuse of Veto Power' Claim Is a False Assertion Used as an Excuse to Amend the Corruption Investigation Office Act"

"Lee Chan-hee, President of the Korean Bar Association, and Cho Jae-hyun, Chief of the Court Administration, Step Away from Neutral Positions"
Tomorrow, Ruling and Opposition Floor Leaders' Meeting to be Held Under Speaker Park Byeong-seok's Chairmanship

Lawyer Lee Heon is attending the 3rd meeting of the Corruption Investigation Office Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee held at the National Assembly on the 18th. Photo by Yoon Dong-ju

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Lawyer Lee Heon, a nominee recommended by the opposition party to the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (PCC) Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee, strongly refuted an editorial by Hankook Ilbo that pointed out the opposition party's responsibility for the committee's deadlock, stating that “the claim that opposition party recommended members exercised their veto rights unreasonably is a false allegation that distorts the facts and a malicious act used to justify the ruling party's legislative revision of the PCC Act.”

Lawyer Lee also expressed strong dissatisfaction with Lee Chan-hee, President of the Korean Bar Association and an ex officio member of the PCC Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee, and Cho Jae-yeon, Director of the Court Administration Office who chairs the committee, for abandoning their neutral positions and, together with the ruling party's recommended members, refusing the opposition's request to resume the meeting and declaring the meeting closed.

"The Cause of the PCC Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee Deadlock Lies with the Ruling Party's Recommended Members and Ex Officio Members"

In a post titled ‘Regarding the November 20th Hankook Ilbo Editorial’ on his Facebook on the morning of the 22nd, Lawyer Lee stated, “The current deadlock of the PCC Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee is caused by the ex officio and ruling party recommended members who ignored the opposition recommended members' request to convene a meeting for additional candidate review, arbitrarily declared the termination of the committee's activities, which is a statutory administrative body under the PCC Act, and dissolved it at their discretion,” adding, “The claim that the exercise of veto rights by opposition recommended members as stipulated in the PCC Act is the cause of the committee's deadlock is an absurd and groundless assertion.”

Lawyer Lee argued, “The only way to prevent the PCC from becoming an unconstitutional, omnipotent pro-government dictatorship investigation office, which many citizens fear, is for the opposition recommended members to exercise their veto rights to uphold political neutrality and independence in their duties, recommend candidates who can punish even the living powers, and not be swayed domestically or internationally,” further stating, “This was emphasized by the ruling party when they forcibly passed the PCC Act through the fast-track process, and it is also the reason why the opposition and opposition recommended members advocated caution.”

He pointed out, “Regarding the exercise of voting rights, which is an inherent authority of the recommended members as stipulated in the PCC Act, there is no need to publicly explain the reasons or seek understanding from other recommended members, so claims that the opposition recommended members' exercise of veto rights is illegal, unfair, or abusive are fundamentally invalid.”

He added, “Moreover, since the opposition recommended members did not abuse their veto rights, the claim that the opposition recommended members bear great responsibility for the delay in the PCC's launch due to abuse of veto rights is unreasonable.”

Lawyer Lee stated, “The opposition recommended members only exercised their veto rights at the third meeting,” and criticized, “Claims by some ruling party lawmakers and media reports that the opposition recommended members continuously exercised veto rights in three meetings distort the facts.”

He explained, “At the third meeting on the 18th, the opposition recommended members requested additional review results through interviews or written documents regarding some candidates’ ▲political neutrality concerns related to public office appointments and tendencies ▲doubts about the professionalism and independence in duties of non-prosecutor candidates’ ability and experience to lead investigative agencies such as the PCC ▲moral suspicions including controversies over preferential treatment based on review of case acceptance records and income/property relations of some candidates.”

He continued, “However, the majority of ex officio and ruling party recommended members pushed forward with the vote to recommend the PCC chief candidate, and the opposition recommended members, considering the meaningless public criticism of veto rights abuse, participated in the vote magnanimously but cast opposing votes because they could not support candidates with doubts about political neutrality, independence in duties, and morality.”

Lawyer Lee said, “The opposition recommended members’ position was that they could support candidates whose doubts and suspicions were resolved in subsequent resumed meetings, and this position should be recorded in the minutes recorded at the third meeting.”

He pointed out, “The claim that opposition recommended members opposed unconditionally or exercised veto rights unreasonably is a false allegation that distorts the facts and a malicious act used to justify the ruling party's legislative revision of the PCC Act to exclude the opposition's veto rights.”

"Lee Chan-hee, President of the Korean Bar Association, Showed a Position Like a Ruling Party Political Agent"... Repeated Criticism

Lawyer Lee criticized that at the third meeting held on the 18th, Lee Chan-hee, President of the Korean Bar Association, and Cho Jae-yeon, Director of the Court Administration Office, both ex officio members in neutral positions, advocated for ‘speedy recommendation’ and sided with the ruling party, which is contrary to legal principles as legal professionals.

He explained, “While the ruling party insisted on a speedy recommendation and the opposition insisted on a cautious recommendation of neutral and independent figures, ex officio members such as the Director of the Court Administration Office and the President of the Korean Bar Association argued for a speedy recommendation citing the example of the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee.”

He strongly criticized, “In a situation where the ruling party is pushing for revision of the PCC Act citing the opposition's deliberate delay, at the third meeting where the candidate recommendation failed, they opposed the opposition recommended members' proposal to convene an additional meeting and declared the termination of the committee's activities, showing behavior contrary to legal principles as legal professionals.”

Lawyer Lee pointed out, “Furthermore, the President of the Korean Bar Association not only showed support for the ruling party's legislative move to exclude the opposition's veto rights but also disclosed confidential information learned in the course of duties, such as the opposition recommended members' opposing votes, through broadcast appearances, labeled the opposition recommended members as political agents before the ruling party recommended members and criticized them, and even demanded an apology from opposition recommended members who rebutted, showing a position like a ruling party political agent rather than a neutral stance.”

He expressed dissatisfaction, saying, “While I agree with the November 20th Hankook Ilbo editorial's point that legislative revision of the PCC Act is not a panacea for the ruling party, the claim that ‘the opposition recommended members bear great responsibility for abusing veto rights at every vote’ supports the position of those who unilaterally and unfairly criticize the opposition and opposition recommended members from the perspective that the Director of the Court Administration Office and the President of the Korean Bar Association have abandoned their neutral positions and intend to appoint a pro-government or nominal figure as PCC chief to turn the PCC into a monstrous investigative office.”

On the 20th, Hankook Ilbo, in an editorial titled ‘Do Not Give Up on the Consensus Recommendation of the PCC Chief,’ pointed out, “The further delay in the PCC launch, whose legal deadline was July 15, is largely due to the People Power Party and its recommended members abusing their veto rights.”

Tomorrow Afternoon, a Meeting of Ruling and Opposition Floor Leaders Presided Over by Speaker Park Byeong-seok... Attention on Whether the PCC Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee Will Resume

Meanwhile, a meeting of ruling and opposition floor leaders presided over by Speaker Park Byeong-seok is scheduled to be held at 3 p.m. on the 23rd to discuss the issue of the PCC chief candidate.

Speaker Park previously stated on the 19th, the day after the third meeting where the PCC chief candidate recommendation failed, “The PCC Chief Recommendation Committee has held three meetings but has not reached a conclusion,” and urged, “I call on the ruling and opposition leadership to seriously negotiate and reach a conclusion that meets the people's expectations even now.”

The ruling party is determined to pass a revision bill to remove the opposition's veto rights in the PCC Act at the plenary session as early as the 2nd of next month and launch the PCC within the year. Attention is focused on whether the PCC Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee will resume through agreement between the ruling and opposition parties.