Ruling Party Presses Chief Justice Over Vacant Supreme Court Seats

The Democratic Party of Korea escalated its offensive on the 2nd, calling Chief Justice Jo Hee-de's refusal to renominate Supreme Court justices a "dereliction of duty." The party argued that the vacancies on the top court infringe on citizens' right to a speedy trial.

Lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee from the Democratic Party and allied parties held an emergency panel with constitutional law experts at the National Assembly that day. The aim was to gather expert views on the constitutional interpretation of the chief justice's duty to nominate justices and the president's appointment process.

The party leader said that day: "I question whether the nomination power held by Chief Justice Jo ranks above the appointment power held by President Lee Jae-myung." The leader added, "In terms of responsibility, the core question is whether it is acceptable to infringe on citizens' right to a speedy trial." Seo Young-kyo, chair of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, also said, "The chief justice's nomination of Supreme Court justice candidates is a duty set out in the Constitution," adding, "Yet Chief Justice Jo is infringing on the right to trial through unilateral action."

Kim Sun-taek, professor emeritus at Korea University School of Law, who moderated the session, backed that view. Kim first made clear that the chief justice's nomination serves as a supporting mechanism to assist the president in selecting justices, not a power that stands on equal footing with the president's appointment authority. The very framing that the chief justice's nomination power could clash with the president's appointment power does not hold, he said.

On Jo's refusal to renominate, Kim called it a dereliction of duty. "As stipulated in Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the chief justice's nomination of Supreme Court justice candidates is both a power and a duty," Kim said. "Declaring that one will not make a nomination is an explicit declaration that one will not fulfill the official duty to nominate. It is making one's intent to neglect duty clear by oneself."

Lee Joon-il, a professor at Korea University School of Law, also stressed that the chief justice's nomination power is a supporting mechanism for appointing justices. "The decision-maker — the president — can reject the nomination outright or send it back. The very meaning of a nomination carries no legal binding force," Lee said. "It is more appropriate to understand it as an expression of intent that triggers the decision-maker's authority."

The move is seen as a public campaign criticizing Jo's refusal to renominate ahead of the start of the parliamentary audit. The Legislation and Judiciary Committee voted on the 28th of last month, led by the Democratic Party, to designate Jo as a witness for the parliamentary audit. The intent is to question him over the circumstances of his refusal to renominate and the background to his phone calls to the justice candidates recommended by the recommendation committee. Jo has also signaled that he intends to appear at the audit in person to explain his position.