Lead Proposal for "Constitutional Court Act Amendment"
"Remedying Citizens' Rights Against Unconstitutional Legal Interpretations"
Jinwook Jung, Member of the National Assembly.
A bill has been proposed that would allow Supreme Court rulings to be challenged through a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court. This signifies a transition to a "four-instance system," enabling the Constitutional Court to review Supreme Court decisions for clear unconstitutional interpretations of the law.
In many civil law countries, such as Germany, Spain, and Austria, court decisions can be subject to constitutional complaints under certain conditions. This aligns with the global trend toward the universal development of constitutional adjudication systems.
On May 8, Jinwook Jung, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea (representing Gwangju Dongnam-gap), announced that he had introduced a bill to amend the Constitutional Court Act, which would add "court decisions" as grounds for filing a constitutional complaint.
Jung stated, "On May 7, the Seoul High Court made the right decision by rescheduling a trial to after the presidential election day, in order to guarantee equal campaign opportunities for the defendant, who is a presidential candidate, and to eliminate concerns about the fairness of the trial." He continued, "Nevertheless, following the Supreme Court's remand decision on May 1, public distrust in the judiciary has grown. For the sake of restoring trust in Supreme Court rulings and protecting citizens' rights, the necessity of this bill remains valid."
The current Constitutional Court Act specifies that "anyone whose fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been infringed by the exercise or non-exercise of governmental power may file a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, except for court decisions." The proposed amendment deletes the phrase "except for court decisions" from this provision.
Jung explained the purpose of the amendment, stating, "By allowing constitutional complaints in cases where court decisions have seriously infringed upon constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, we aim to eliminate blind spots in the constitutional adjudication system and make remedies for citizens' rights more substantive."
He emphasized, "Currently, even if a court decision loses fairness and results in serious infringement of fundamental rights, there is a contradictory situation where review by the Constitutional Court is not possible. It is unreasonable that constitutional review is blocked solely because a ruling is final from the Supreme Court, even when the trial process lacked consideration of fundamental rights or there was a clear interpretation or application of the law that violates the Constitution."
He further argued, "Closing the door to constitutional adjudication even when citizens' fundamental rights are violated by judicial action and all other legal remedies are effectively blocked runs counter to the essence and purpose of the constitutional complaint system."
Jung also stated, "If this amendment passes, there will be one more procedure available to challenge even final Supreme Court rulings. Through this amendment, the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution will be further strengthened."
Meanwhile, the legal community anticipates that if the "four-instance system" becomes a reality, the Supreme Court will be subject to review by the Constitutional Court, effectively placing it below the Constitutional Court, which is expected to bring significant changes within the judiciary.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
