[2025 Audit] Son Inhyuk, Secretary General of the Constitutional Court: "Judgment Petition System Needed to Guarantee Citizens' Fundamental Rights"

Concerns Over a "Four-Tiered Trial System":
"Reviewing Only Special Constitutional Issues... Labeling It as a Fourth Instance Is Contradictory"
"Request for Dissolution of an Unconstitutional Party"
"Must Be Used with Extreme Caution and Only as a Last Resort"

Son Inhyuk, Secretary General of the Constitutional Court, is responding to a lawmaker's question at the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit of the Constitutional Court held on the 17th at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

Son Inhyuk, Secretary General of the Constitutional Court, expressed his opinion regarding the so-called "judgment petition," which would allow for constitutional complaints against court rulings, stating, "It would be desirable to introduce the judgment petition system to better guarantee citizens' fundamental rights and realize constitutional values."

On October 17, during the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit held at the Constitutional Court, Son responded to a related question by saying, "The Constitutional Court has submitted its position to the National Assembly several times, stating that the introduction of the judgment petition system is necessary, in relation to the proposed amendment to the Constitutional Court Act."

He added, "The issue of the judgment petition has long been advocated by both academia and practitioners," drawing a clear distinction from the recent judicial reform initiatives being pursued by the Democratic Party of Korea.

Son further stated, "It is generally accepted in constitutional theory and considered the mainstream view that the judgment petition system would not only make citizens' fundamental rights more substantive, but also ensure that the spirit of the Constitution is reflected throughout all judicial proceedings, thereby contributing more effectively to the realization of a true rule-of-law state."

Regarding concerns that introducing the judgment petition system could effectively create a "four-tiered trial system," Son argued, "Even though both are judicial functions, the judicial authority of the ordinary courts and that of the Constitutional Court are fundamentally different in nature. Even if the Constitutional Court reviews a case through a constitutional complaint, it is to rule on a specific constitutional issue, so it is somewhat contradictory to simply label it as a fourth instance."

Addressing concerns that the current staffing of the Constitutional Court would be insufficient if the judgment petition system were introduced, Son explained, "In the opinion submitted to the National Assembly, we not only proposed removing the prohibition on judgment petitions, but also suggested strengthening the preliminary review process and adding special admissibility requirements for such petitions to ensure more expeditious proceedings. With these measures, most judgment petition cases could be dismissed at the designation stage, and simple cases could be rejected outright, which would be manageable with our current personnel."

Regarding the request from the ruling party for the dissolution of the People Power Party on the grounds of unconstitutionality, Son emphasized, "The judgment to dissolve a political party must be used with extreme caution and only as a last resort," adding, "Even in the Unified Progressive Party dissolution case, the bench stressed that the dissolution of a political party should be an extremely cautious and final measure."