[The Editors' Verdict] Article 84 of the Constitution and the "72-Character Ruling"

"According to Article 84 of the Constitution":
The Court's Sole Reason for Suspending President Lee's Trial
Is the Judiciary Neglecting Its Duty to Interpret the Law?

While covering the legal field, I once wrote an article about a judge's "72-character ruling." I came across a brief report in a legal journal stating that the Bar Association had filed a complaint with the Supreme Court regarding a member's ruling. After some investigation, I managed to track down the complainant, a lawyer. When I finally reviewed the problematic ruling from a lawsuit over a 29 million won loan, I was left speechless.

The ruling simply attached the lawyer's trial brief, which reflected the client's position, as an "annex," and stated, "The plaintiff asserts as set forth in the annex, but there is no evidence to the contrary." It failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Act, which requires that the grounds for a ruling must include the parties' arguments and the basis for the decision to the extent that the justification for the ruling can be recognized. The reasoning in the ruling was so perfunctory that it amounted to a total of seventy-two characters. That is why it became known as the "72-character ruling."

I exchanged phone calls with the judge for a while. "Shouldn't there be reasoning in a ruling so that the parties can accept the outcome?" (Reporter) "For small claims cases, it's not necessary to provide reasons." (Judge) "But the amount in this case suggests it's not a small claim, but a mid-sized case." (Reporter) "I made it brief for the sake of simplifying the ruling..." (Judge) "Simplification means writing it in plain language, not omitting it altogether." (Reporter)... The judge insisted that the trial had been conducted thoroughly, but I found it hard to believe.

I bring this up because of how the courts responded regarding whether the trial of the sitting president should continue. As is well known, the judges in charge of the president's trial all decided to suspend the proceedings. The reason given was simply, "This is a measure in accordance with Article 84 of the Constitution," a statement of just thirteen characters. If recalling my experience investigating the "72-character ruling" from years ago upon seeing this is an overreaction, then so be it.

Throughout the presidential election, the interpretation of Article 84 of the Constitution?which stipulates that "the sitting president, except in cases of insurrection or treason, shall not be subject to criminal prosecution while in office"?was a matter of national interest. There was debate among politicians and law professors alike over whether "prosecution" in Article 84 referred only to indictment by prosecutors or also included the trial itself. Of course, considering the legislative intent behind including this provision in the Constitution (to ensure the president can perform official duties smoothly), the prevailing view is that trials should also be suspended, and I agree with that opinion. However, there are certainly citizens who hold different views. Ultimately, we have no choice but to look to the courts, which have the final authority to interpret the law. Yet the court's response was simply, "We decided in accordance with Article 84 of the Constitution," leaving the public to infer the reasoning on their own. How is this any different from the 72-character ruling that stated, "The plaintiff asserts as set forth in the annex, but there is no reason"?

I do not wish to accuse the courts of bowing to the power of the sitting president out of fear. Nor do I wish to compare the situation to the U.S. judge who, in the case of President Trump, took seven minutes and thirty seconds to thoroughly explain the reasons for granting unconditional release. I only wish to point out the unkindness and lack of sincerity in telling the public?who simply want to hear the court's explanation?to "interpret it as you wish."

In our country, the rate at which people accept court rulings is lower than anywhere else in the world. The high rate of appeals and further appeals is not due to a national character of "let's see it through to the end," nor is it because the right to a fair trial is perfectly guaranteed in Korea. Rather, it stems from the simple wish of litigants to at least know why they lost their case. Fulfilling that wish is the calling of those who serve as judges.