[Reporter’s Notebook] National Assembly Audit Becomes a Stage for Pressuring the Judiciary

"Judges speak through their rulings. It is regrettable that there seems to be distrust regarding the background of the swift proceedings and the announcement of the verdict."

On October 13, Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae made this statement during the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit of the Supreme Court. His remarks were in response to sharp criticism from the ruling party regarding the Supreme Court's Grand Bench overturning and remanding President Lee Jaemyung's violation of the Public Official Election Act with a guilty verdict.

It was unusual for the 'Cho Hee-dae Grand Bench' to review and rule on President Lee's election law violation case at such a rapid pace, handing down the verdict last May just before the presidential election. It is perhaps understandable that the Democratic Party and other pro-government groups have raised questions about this ruling. If the Supreme Court had transparently disclosed the process by which the case was referred to the Grand Bench and had announced that all justices were participating in the review, it might not have faced suspicions of intervening in the election through its decision or been criticized by the ruling party under the banner of judicial reform.

Even so, it is difficult to justify summoning the Chief Justice, the head of the judiciary, to the National Assembly and demanding to know "why such a verdict was made." Such actions can be seen as undermining the very foundation of our criminal justice system and denying the existence of the judiciary itself. Attempting to call the Chief Justice, who presided over the Grand Bench, as a witness at the audit appears to be an attempt to shake the entire judiciary. It is also hard to avoid criticism that the audit was used as a "stage" to embarrass the Chief Justice.

There are two main reasons why the longstanding practice of the Chief Justice not answering lawmakers' questions during the audit has been maintained for over 30 years. First, it is intended to uphold the independence of the judiciary. Second, it serves as a minimum safeguard to prevent a situation where the Chief Justice would have to answer questions about every case.

In the 2018 audit, the Democratic Party stated, "The Chief Justice not responding to questions is an expression of respect for the Supreme Court in accordance with the principle of separation of powers," and blocked the opposition's attempt to summon then-Chief Justice Kim Myungsoo as a witness. There is no clear explanation for why their stance has now changed so drastically.

Chief Justice Cho, attending the audit as a reference rather than as a witness, remained in the chamber for about an hour and thirty minutes and was even mocked as "Choyotomi Hideyoshi," likening him to Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who started the Japanese invasions of Korea. On October 15, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee will visit the Supreme Court for a second on-site audit. The Democratic Party, as the ruling party, should demonstrate the dignity that comes with respecting the judiciary.