Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de has declined a request to appear as a witness at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's parliamentary audit, according to lawmakers. He explained that requiring the chief justice to testify before the legislature runs counter to the Constitution. The Democratic Party of Korea countered that failing to appear after being summoned as a general witness violates the National Assembly Act.
Rep. Seo Young-kyo, who chairs the committee, told a news conference at the National Assembly on the 4th that Jo had submitted a written opinion on the summons ahead of the Supreme Court audit scheduled for Oct. 6. "He says it is difficult for him to appear and answer questions as a witness," Seo said.
"Whenever the National Assembly asks for an explanation on judicial affairs, he refuses to appear by invoking judicial independence, and this keeps repeating," Seo said. "Continuing to refuse requests to appear before the National Assembly amounts to rejecting the legislature's checks and verification."
Noting that the committee summoned Jo as a general witness rather than as an institutional witness, Seo argued that the chief justice is obliged to appear under the current law on testimony and appraisal before the National Assembly. "Saying he will not appear is a violation of the National Assembly Act," she said.
"The chief justice is not a sanctuary, and judicial independence is not a shield that permits silence over unconstitutional acts," she said, urging Jo to "sit in the witness stand and answer directly to the people."
In the written opinion, Jo said it would be difficult for him to appear and answer questions as a witness, given his duty to abide by the Constitution and the law and the possibility that investigative proceedings could follow, according to the committee.
He also argued that having the National Assembly compel testimony on the chief justice's exercise of the power to nominate justices, a constitutionally independent authority, runs counter to judicial independence and to the separation of powers reflected in Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
On the summons itself, he wrote that it not only exceeds the limits of the separation of powers but also fails to align with the intent of Article 121 of the National Assembly Act, which does not impose on the chief justice a duty to attend and answer before the legislature.
