Regular En Banc Session Scheduled for May 22...
Possibility of a Ruling Before May 11 Candidate Registration
Early Decision Expected to Minimize Impact on Presidential Election
Still Possible for Ruling to Be Delayed Until After June 3 Election Due to Internal Disagreements
There is growing speculation regarding the timing of the Supreme Court en banc decision on the violation of the Public Official Election Act by former Democratic Party leader Lee Jaemyung, a ruling that could determine the course of his presidential campaign. Some predict that the en banc decision will be issued by the end of May, ahead of the presidential election on June 3, while others suggest that it could come as early as before the candidate registration deadline on May 11.
According to the legal community on April 27, the Supreme Court, after unexpectedly referring Lee's election law case from a smaller panel to the en banc on April 22, held its first en banc session on the same day. The en banc then convened its second session just two days later, on April 24, to begin a full review of the key issues. Although a third session has not yet been scheduled, considering that the Supreme Court typically holds en banc hearings once a month, this pace is considered unusual.
As of March 26, the date of Lee’s appellate court verdict, the prevailing view was that a Supreme Court ruling would be unlikely before June 3. Under the election law, the Supreme Court must issue its decision within three months of the appellate verdict. However, as the Supreme Court has accelerated its procedures, there is now increasing speculation that a decision could be reached before the presidential election.
In particular, regarding the possible ruling date, some expect that, following usual practice, the decision could come during the week of the regular May en banc hearing, which falls on the 22nd. Others speculate that the Court may issue its decision before the candidate registration deadline of May 11 to resolve uncertainties in the presidential race. The Supreme Court typically holds en banc sessions on the third Thursday of each month, but if the third Thursday falls on the 15th, the session is held on the 22nd instead.
Although, according to Supreme Court regulations, the ruling date can be set on a different day from the en banc hearing, it is more common for deliberation and ruling to occur together. Cases scheduled for ruling are those that have already been deliberated, and over 70% are concluded in a single session, with the written judgment delivered the following month. Over the past year, all en banc cases have been ruled on the third or fourth Thursday of the month. Therefore, the en banc may hold one or two more sessions on Lee’s case and reach a conclusion in mid or late May.
Additionally, it is possible that the ruling could be issued before the presidential candidate registration date of May 11. Under the election law, once the candidate registration period has passed, a party cannot register a different candidate even if the original candidate withdraws. Thus, the Supreme Court may choose to issue its ruling before the registration deadline to resolve uncertainties in the candidate selection process. Most en banc decisions are made after just one session. It is therefore not impossible for the result to be delivered before May 11, which is about two weeks away.
Previously, in Lee’s case involving the alleged false statement regarding his brother’s involuntary hospitalization, the Supreme Court referred the case to the en banc on June 15, 2020, and after just one session, scheduled the ruling for July 16, a month later, ultimately overturning the appellate decision. In that case, the referral to the en banc occurred because the smaller panel could not reach a consensus, and the entire process from the appellate court ruling to the Supreme Court decision took about ten months, which is a difference from the current case.
Of course, if there are significant differences of opinion among the justices, it may be difficult to reach a decision before the presidential election. In such a scenario, the applicability of Article 84 of the Constitution, which stipulates presidential immunity from prosecution, is likely to become a point of contention. The Supreme Court may seek to resolve this controversy in its decision.
Meanwhile, Lee appeared on a broadcast as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in 2021 and stated that he did not know the late Kim Moonki, former head of development at Seongnam Urban Development Corporation. He also testified at a parliamentary audit that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport had pressured the city of Seongnam during the rezoning process of the Baekhyeon-dong Korea Food Research Institute site. He was charged with making false statements and went through both the first and second trials. In the first trial, the court found Lee guilty of the so-called "golf statement"?that he did not play golf with Kim?and the "Baekhyeon-dong statement," sentencing him to one year in prison with a two-year suspended sentence. However, the appellate court acquitted him of all related charges.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
