[News Terms] Constitutional Court's Valid Decision on Geomsu Wanbak 'Jurisdiction Dispute Judgment'

'Jurisdictional Dispute (權限爭議) Adjudication' refers to the procedure in which the Constitutional Court makes a judgment when a dispute arises between state agencies regarding the existence or scope of authority.

It functions to maintain the constitutional order by clarifying the authority and scope of state agencies or local governments. All nine constitutional justices deliberate, and a decision to accept, dismiss, or reject the case is made by a majority vote of the justices (at least five).

The state agencies subject to jurisdictional dispute adjudication include the National Assembly, government, courts, and the Central Election Management Committee among each other, between the government and local governments, and among local governments themselves. However, disputes between the Superintendent of Education and local government heads, or between the National Human Rights Commission and the President, are not subject to jurisdictional dispute adjudication.

On the 23rd, the day of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the authority dispute regarding the complete removal of the prosecution's investigative powers (Geomsu Wanbak) bill, Yoon Nam-seok, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, is seated with the constitutional justices at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

On June 30, 2016, in a jurisdictional dispute adjudication between Gyeongsangnam-do Province and the Gyeongsangnam-do Office of Education, the court dismissed the case stating that "the Superintendent of Education cannot be regarded as the local government itself or as an independent legal entity separate from the local government." On October 28, 2010, regarding a jurisdictional dispute adjudication between the National Human Rights Commission and the President, the court dismissed the case stating that "since the National Human Rights Commission was established under the National Human Rights Commission Act enacted by the National Assembly, it cannot be considered a state agency established by the Constitution," and thus is not a party subject to jurisdictional dispute adjudication.

On the 23rd, the Constitutional Court recognized that the rights of People Power Party members were infringed during the legislative process 11 months after the passage of the 'Complete Removal of Prosecution Investigation Authority (검수완박)' bill. However, the court dismissed the request to nullify the act of the Chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee declaring the bill passed. The court also did not recognize the prosecutor's investigation and prosecution authority.

The Democratic Party of Korea passed the 'Prosecutors' Office Act Amendment Bill,' which centers on the complete removal of prosecution investigation authority, on April 30 last year, and the 'Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill' on May 3. In response, the People Power Party filed a provisional injunction to suspend the effect of the bill with the Constitutional Court on April 27, immediately after the bill passed the Legislation and Judiciary Committee's agenda coordination meeting, and filed a jurisdictional dispute adjudication on April 29 when the bill moved to the plenary session. The Ministry of Justice and the prosecution also filed jurisdictional dispute adjudications on June 27.

There have been many cases of jurisdictional dispute adjudications filed between members of the National Assembly and the Speaker, between local governments and the government, and among local governments, but this case is the first time since the first jurisdictional dispute adjudication request in 1990 that a government agency has filed a jurisdictional dispute adjudication against the National Assembly.