Explanation of Acting President Han Ducksoo's Grounds for Exercising the Veto
The Ministry of Justice explained that Acting President and Prime Minister Han Ducksoo exercised his right to request reconsideration, or veto, regarding the "Amendment to the Constitutional Court Act," stating that the amendment is highly likely to be unconstitutional.
On April 29, the Ministry of Justice issued a press release, stating, "The amendment restricts the scope of duties of the acting president by law, even though there are no constitutional limitations," and added, "Any provision restricting the scope of duties of the acting president should be established through a constitutional amendment or, at the very least, should be decided carefully after a national consensus of a comparable level."
The amendment stipulates that the acting president may appoint only three Constitutional Court justices selected by the National Assembly and three nominated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, out of the nine total justices. This amendment was proposed primarily by the Democratic Party of Korea and passed the National Assembly plenary session on April 17, after Acting President Han nominated Lee Wankyu, Chief of the Office of Legislation, and Ham Sanghoon, Chief Judge of the Seoul High Court, as Constitutional Court justice candidates in the "presidential quota," in an attempt to block these nominations.
The Ministry of Justice explained, "Considering the need to respond to national emergencies, the obligation to maintain the functions of constitutional institutions, and the nature of the executive branch's appointment authority based on the separation of powers, excessively restricting the scope of duties of the acting president could result in an inability to take appropriate action in unforeseen circumstances."
The ministry further added, "Looking at international cases, countries with presidential systems such as the United States and Chile do not restrict the scope of duties of the acting president, while countries like France and Russia only restrict extremely exceptional powers through their constitutions," and emphasized, "If the scope of duties is to be restricted, it is desirable for this to be explicitly stipulated in the constitution."
The Ministry of Justice also pointed out that the provision deeming the appointment of justices by the president after seven days have passed since their selection by the National Assembly or nomination by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court "effectively nullifies the president's constitutional authority to appoint Constitutional Court justices by law, raising serious constitutional concerns."
Additionally, the ministry elaborated, "Article 111 of the Constitution separately stipulates the president's act of appointment, distinguishing it from the selection by the National Assembly and the nomination by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court has also ruled that, if there are issues with the qualifications or selection process of a justice, the president may withhold appointment and request a new selection."
Regarding the provision that extends the term of a predecessor justice if a successor is not appointed, the ministry stated, "If constitutional institutions involved in the appointment of justices intentionally delay the selection, nomination, or appointment of a successor, the incumbent justice continues to serve. This not only violates the constitutional provision specifying the term of justices but also goes against the fundamental purpose of the term system and the constitutional principles regarding the composition of the Constitutional Court."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
