Chief Justice Cho Says Assembly, President Cannot Intervene in Justice Nominations
Version 2: Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has now specified that the National Assembly and the President cannot intervene in the Chief Justice's recommendation of Supreme Court justices, refused the witness oath and testimony at the parliamentary audit, and outlets have added background on the August recommendation dispute and the prolonged Supreme Court vacancy.
In short
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on October 6, 2026 that the National Assembly and the President cannot intervene in the Chief Justice's recommendation of Supreme Court justices, citing Article 104 of the Constitution. He refused the witness oath and testimony at the parliamentary audit, saying the demand is unconstitutional and against judicial independence. The dispute follows a standoff over a Supreme Court justice recommendation, Seoul Economic Daily reported.
Read the full story 2 min read
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae told the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's Supreme Court audit on October 6, 2026 that the National Assembly and the President cannot be involved in the Chief Justice's recommendation of Supreme Court justices, according to Yonhap, Newsis and other outlets. He cited Article 104 of the Constitution, which provides that Supreme Court justices are recommended by the Chief Justice, consented to by the National Assembly and appointed by the President, Maeil Business and Dong-A Ilbo reported. He said interference by the National Assembly in the recommendation is unconstitutional and contrary to the separation of powers and judicial independence. [ 5 , 6 , 10 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]
Cho refused the witness oath and testimony at the audit. He said there is no constitutional or legal basis for the National Assembly to demand testimony on the recommendation, and that the Chief Justice's recommendation completes all constitutional rights and duties. Maeil Business reported he read from prepared notes and explained the reasons for refusing the oath and testimony. Dong-A Ilbo reported he said the recommendation is an exclusive power and that audit or testimony demands have no constitutional or legal basis. [ 4 , 8 , 13 , 16 ]
Cho also addressed the practice of prior consultation with the President. He said there is no constitutional basis for such consultation, that he had cooperated voluntarily for prompt appointment, and that past presidents ultimately respected the recommendation right. He said written recommendation is not restricted by the Constitution. Newsis reported he said the National Assembly and the President cannot interfere at all in the Chief Justice's recommendation. [ 5 , 13 , 16 ]
Seoul Economic Daily reported that the Supreme Court justice candidate recommendation committee in January recommended Kim Min-ki, Park Soon-young, Yoon Seong-sik and Son Bong-ki for the seat of former Justice Noh Tae-ak. The Blue House and the judiciary could not narrow differences over the final candidate. In August, Cho broke practice and recommended Son Bong-ki without agreement with the Blue House, the outlet reported. The Blue House demanded re-recommendation, saying the procedure was not complete, but Cho refused, asking for the reasons and constitutional basis, leading to a direct clash, according to the same outlet. [ 4 ]
Cho apologized for the prolonged Supreme Court justice vacancy and said he feels the need to resolve it, and would work to make the Supreme Court composition complete under the Constitution and laws, Seoul Economic Daily reported. He also said he refused the oath and testimony because the National Assembly cannot question something not in the Constitution. At the audit, Maeil Business reported, Cho responded directly to ruling party suspicions, the first time a Chief Justice has directly responded to lawmakers' questions at such an audit. [ 4 , 13 ]
Why it matters
The dispute tests the separation of powers between South Korea's judiciary, legislature and presidency. Cho's refusal to testify at a parliamentary audit may deepen the standoff and delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy. The documents do not indicate how the conflict will be resolved.
Key facts
- Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae appeared at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's Supreme Court audit on October 6, 2026. [ 4 , 13 , 16 ]
- Cho said the National Assembly and the President cannot be involved in the Chief Justice's recommendation of Supreme Court justices. [ 5 , 6 , 10 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]
- Cho cited Article 104 of the Constitution, which says Supreme Court justices are recommended by the Chief Justice, consented to by the National Assembly and appointed by the President. [ 13 , 16 ]
- Cho refused the witness oath and testimony, saying the demand has no constitutional or legal basis and violates separation of powers and judicial independence. [ 4 , 13 , 16 ]
- Cho said prior consultation with the President has no constitutional basis, though past presidents respected the recommendation right. [ 5 , 13 ]
- Cho said the submission of the appointment consent request ends with the Chief Justice's recommendation, completing all constitutional rights and duties. [ 8 , 13 ]
- Seoul Economic Daily reported Cho apologized for a prolonged Supreme Court justice vacancy and said he would work to complete the court's composition under the Constitution and laws. [ 4 ]
- Seoul Economic Daily reported the Blue House demanded re-recommendation after Cho recommended Son Bong-ki in August without agreement. [ 4 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said the National Assembly and the President cannot be involved in the Chief Justice's recommendation of Supreme Court justices. [ 5 , 6 , 10 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]
- Cho said the Chief Justice's recommendation right, the National Assembly's consent right and the President's appointment right should be respected in line with their constitutional meaning. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Cho refused the witness oath and testimony at the parliamentary audit, citing separation of powers and judicial independence. [ 4 , 13 , 16 ]
- Cho cited Article 104 of the Constitution, which provides that Supreme Court justices are recommended by the Chief Justice, consented to by the National Assembly and appointed by the President. [ 13 , 16 ]
- Cho said prior consultation with the President on Supreme Court justice recommendations has no constitutional basis. [ 5 , 13 ]
Still unclear
- The Blue House demanded that Cho re-recommend a Supreme Court justice candidate, saying the procedure was not complete. Only Seoul Economic Daily names the Blue House as the requester; other documents refer to a re-recommendation demand without identifying who made it.
- The final outcome of the dispute over the Supreme Court justice vacancy. Documents do not say whether the vacancy will be filled or how the standoff will be resolved.
- The detailed reasons the Blue House gave for saying the recommendation procedure was not complete. Seoul Economic Daily mentions the claim but does not provide detailed reasoning.
- Whether the National Assembly will take further action after Cho's refusal to testify. Documents do not report any follow-up.
What local media are saying
Timeline, local time
- Yonhap reports Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae saying the Chief Justice's recommendation right, the National Assembly's consent right and the President's appointment right should be respected. [ 1 ]
- Seoul Shinmun reports Cho says he cannot testify at the parliamentary audit and calls for the constitutional powers to be respected. [ 2 ]
- Korea Economic Daily reports Cho says there is no constitutional basis for a re-recommendation demand and that he judges the procedure difficult to proceed. [ 3 ]
- Seoul Economic Daily reports Cho apologizes for the prolonged Supreme Court justice vacancy and says he will work to make the Supreme Court composition complete under the Constitution and laws. [ 4 ]
- Newsis reports Cho says the National Assembly and President cannot be involved in the Chief Justice's recommendation of Supreme Court justices. [ 5 ]
- Yonhap reports the same statement that the National Assembly and President cannot be involved in the Chief Justice's recommendation. [ 6 ]
- Maeil Business reports Cho cited Article 104 and explained why he refused the witness oath and testimony. [ 13 ]
- Dong-A Ilbo reports Cho said the recommendation is an exclusive power and that audit or testimony demands have no constitutional or legal basis. [ 16 ]