The ruling and opposition parties are facing difficulties in reaching an agreement on the appointment of successors to Lee Jong-seok (63, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 15), the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, who is set to retire next month, and Constitutional Court Justices Lee Young-jin (63, class 22) and Kim Ki-young (56, class 22). Concerns are growing over potential gaps in the Constitutional Court's operations. As the issue of the Chief Justice's term remains unresolved and neglected, calls are increasing to clearly define the term by law.
Political Deadlock Causes Difficulties in Appointing Parliament’s Justices
Lee Jong-seok, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, whose term expires on the 17th of next month, along with Constitutional Court Justices Lee Young-jin and Kim Ki-young, were elected in 2018 through nominations by the parliamentary negotiation groups: the Liberty Korea Party, the Bareunmirae Party, and the Democratic Party of Korea, respectively. Their successors are also to be appointed from the National Assembly’s quota.
The ruling and opposition parties remain at an impasse over the method of selecting the three justices from the National Assembly’s quota. The ruling People Power Party proposes that each party nominates one candidate, and the remaining one be appointed through mutual agreement. On the other hand, the major opposition Democratic Party argues that, based on the number of seats, it is appropriate for them to nominate two justices and for the People Power Party to nominate one.
Amid this stalemate, political deadlock has deepened following the passage of the special prosecutor law concerning First Lady Kim Keon-hee, led by the Democratic Party, in the plenary session on the 19th. Concerns are rising that delays in appointing justices may be inevitable for some time.
The problem is that if appointments are delayed and vacancies arise in the bench, deliberations could be completely halted. Article 23 of the Constitutional Court Act stipulates that the Constitutional Court must hear cases with the attendance of at least seven of the nine justices.
"Wise Agreement Needed Through Political Skill from Both Sides"
The reason the ruling and opposition parties cannot reach an agreement on nominating candidates from the National Assembly’s quota lies in a 'regulatory gap.' Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act, which governs the appointment procedure of justices, states only that “justices are appointed by the President. Among them, three are elected by the National Assembly, and three are nominated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” without specifying detailed regulations on the selection of justices from the ruling and opposition parties.
Accordingly, the National Assembly has traditionally appointed justices by having each party nominate one candidate and selecting the remaining one through consultation. When the second bench was formed in 1994, the ruling Democratic Liberal Party had nearly twice as many seats as the opposition Democratic Party, so the Democratic Liberal Party nominated two justices and the Democratic Party one.
Kim Jin-han (56, class 29), a lawyer and former constitutional research officer, said, “The appointment of justices from the National Assembly’s quota is a political issue rather than a legal one. Therefore, the People Power Party needs to show respect for the Democratic Party’s number of seats, and the Democratic Party should show respect for the minority People Power Party.” He added, “In the current situation where there are only two parliamentary negotiation groups, a wise agreement should be reached where the Democratic Party and the People Power Party each nominate one candidate, and the Democratic Party exercises practical nomination rights for the remaining one based on seat count, while the People Power Party retains veto power.”
Discussion on Chief Justice’s Term Also Neglected
As political disputes over the appointment of justices continue, discussions on the term of the Chief Justice, who oversees the Constitutional Court’s affairs, have not even begun.
Lee Jong-seok, who was appointed as a justice in October 2018 and then as Chief Justice in November last year, is expected to complete his six-year term as a justice on the 17th of next month, which will also end his 11-month term as Chief Justice. There have been ongoing criticisms that the term of the Chief Justice, who leads the constitutionally independent Constitutional Court, is excessively short.
The issue of the Chief Justice’s term has been recurring since the mid-2000s when the practice of appointing a new Chief Justice from among sitting justices began. There has been disagreement over whether the remaining term as a justice becomes the Chief Justice’s term, or whether the Chief Justice’s term should be considered a new six-year term. The Constitutional Court Act only states that the Chief Justice is appointed by the President with the consent of the National Assembly from among the justices, without clearly defining the term.
Lawyer Kim Jin-han said, “The shorter the Chief Justice’s term, the more vulnerable it is to political pressure.” He emphasized the need for legislation, stating, “In the current system where constitutional and legal provisions on the Chief Justice’s term are unclear, the appointing authority can effectively decide the Chief Justice’s term, yet the National Assembly is neglecting this issue.”
Hong Yoon-ji, Han Soo-hyun, Legal Times reporters
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
