Presidential Office Says Chief Justice Distorted Facts on Renomination Request

The presidential office on the 22nd pushed back against Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de's refusal to submit a new Supreme Court justice nominee, saying the chief justice had "distorted the facts" by citing the absence of specific constitutional grounds.

A presidential office official said that in relaying his position to the media, the chief justice opened by stating that "acts of the president under the law shall be executed in documents countersigned by the prime minister and the members of the State Council concerned." The official said that amounted to "a statement that distorts the facts, as if the president's renomination request were defective for failing to observe the constitutional requirements of documentation and countersignature."

The official said the president's official letter dated the 28th of last month requesting the renomination of a Supreme Court justice candidate was issued as an electronic document and was countersigned by the prime minister. "Until now, chief justices and Supreme Court justices have been appointed with the prime minister's countersignature alone," the official said, adding that "if the argument is that the return of the nomination and the renomination request are invalid because a relevant State Council member did not countersign, that would mean denying the validity of the appointments of every chief justice and Supreme Court justice made to date with only the prime minister's countersignature."

The official also said the president, out of respect for the chief justice as the head of a constitutional institution, had simply refrained from using the words "return" or "rejection" in the letter, while making his refusal clear by stating that "the government has decided not to submit a consent motion to the National Assembly for nominee Son Bong-gi." The official said that "since the president has rejected the nominee, the chief justice has no option other than nominating a new candidate if he is to fulfill his constitutional duty to help constitute a constitutional institution."

The remarks are read as meaning that even if the president did not explicitly say he was returning Son's nomination or ordering a renomination, his decision not to submit the consent motion effectively conveyed a request for a new nominee. "We explained the specific reasons in detail through the senior spokesperson's briefing," the official said. "It is hard to gauge the intent behind the chief justice alone saying he does not know the reasons for the return, which the public is fully aware of, on the grounds that they are not written in the official letter."

The official added that "what the public wants from the chief justice, under the broader cause of judicial independence, is surely not to see only what he wishes to see and hear only what he wishes to hear," and urged that "the chief justice faithfully carry out his duty to constitute a constitutional institution so that citizens' constitutional right to a speedy trial is no longer infringed."

Earlier the same day, the chief justice said in a notice to the media that "acts of the president under the law shall be executed in documents countersigned by the prime minister and the members of the State Council concerned," and that "the only document related to this renomination request is the 'request for renomination of a Supreme Court justice candidate.'" He added that the document "does not state the specific reasons for requesting a renomination or their constitutional basis, and no other specific constitutional grounds or reasons justifying the renomination request can be found," concluding that he "cannot comply with the renomination request."