Judiciary Committee Clashes Over Chief Justice's Early Exit From Audit

Rival parties clashed head-on over whether Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de should be allowed to leave the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's parliamentary audit of government agencies. The People Power Party argued there was no reason to keep the chief justice in the room, saying the Democratic Party had broken the long-standing practice of letting the chief justice depart after delivering opening remarks. The Democratic Party of Korea countered that Jo must answer in person to clear up questions about the process of renominating a Supreme Court justice.

Rep. Park Hyung-soo of the People Power Party, the opposition's committee liaison on the judiciary panel, pushed back at the audit on the 6th. "For decades, the practice has been for the chief justice to deliver opening remarks, leave, and then return to speak again as the audit wraps up," he said. "The Democratic Party unilaterally broke that practice last year, and it is breaking it again in the same way."

He argued that Jo should be allowed to leave, particularly since the chief justice had stated that day that he would not take the witness oath or testify. "In his opening remarks today, the chief justice already fully explained why he cannot appear as a witness, along with his position on judicial independence and the nomination of Supreme Court justices," Park said. "What more do you expect to hear that justifies forcing the chief justice to sit here?"

On the decision to summon Jo as a sworn witness under the National Assembly testimony law to hold him accountable over the renomination of a Supreme Court justice, Park said, "The chief justice has already made the nomination." He added, "The reason the appointment is not going through is that the president, through the presidential office, requested a renomination." He then raised his voice: "So who should be appearing here? President Lee Jae-myung should be the one. The constitutional basis for the renomination request and how it came about are questions that should be put to the president."

Rep. Kim Eui-kyeom, the Democratic Party's committee liaison on the judiciary panel, directly rebutted Park's argument, saying it was Jo who broke the practice first. "The practice began to break down because of Chief Justice Jo Hee-de," Kim said. "Nominations by the chief justice have in the past come up after the presidential office and the chief justice reached agreement and consulted with each other, but this time the nomination was made without any agreement."

"Is it a consistent attitude to invoke practice when it suits you and depart from it when it does not?" he said. "Two brief statements delivered through a court spokesman have done nothing to resolve our questions. These are things we cannot hear from anyone but Chief Justice Jo Hee-de."

The dispute over Jo's departure had committee members from both parties shouting at each other even before the agency briefings began. When the committee chairman pressed ahead with the session while disregarding Jo's request to leave, some People Power Party lawmakers objected, saying, "What do you mean, 'hot'?" and "You ruin judicial independence and then call it 'hot'?" The chairman repeatedly warned members to "maintain order in the chamber," and Democratic Party and People Power Party lawmakers traded demands for apologies and warnings of expulsion. Jo, however, said he would not testify that day but would remain in the audit room rather than leave.