Translating into Русский. The English version is shown until it is ready.
S. Korea Chief Justice says Assembly interference in justice picks unconstitutional
Коротко
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae told a National Assembly audit on Oct 6 that the President and the National Assembly cannot be involved at all in the Chief Justice’s recommendation of Supreme Court justices, and that the Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s interference is unconstitutional and against judicial independence. Reading from prepared documents for more than six minutes, he said past consultations with presidents were voluntary cooperation, not an obligation, and that he had refused to take an oath or testify. Ruling-party lawmakers criticised him and the presidential office repeated its call for a swift re-recommendation.
Читать полностью 3 мин чтения
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on Oct 6 that the President and the National Assembly cannot be involved at all in the Chief Justice’s recommendation of Supreme Court justices, and that the Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s interference is unconstitutional and against the separation of powers and judicial independence. Newsis, Yonhap and Korea Economic Daily carried the statement as breaking news within four minutes of one another from 12:08 local time. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]
He made the remarks at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s audit of the Supreme Court, after Rep. Kim Ki-pyo of the Democratic Party asked him to explain the re-recommendation dispute directly, according to Seoul Economic Daily and Kyunghyang Shinmun. He asked for time and read from prepared documents; Newsis reported the statement lasted 6 minutes 13 seconds, that he used the word “unconstitutional” four times, and that he had refused to take the witness oath. SBS News reported the audit opened amid confrontation over that refusal. [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]
Citing Article 104(2) of the Constitution, Cho said the recommendation right is the Chief Justice’s exclusive authority and that interference with it is unconstitutional. He said past consultations with presidents were “arbitrary cooperation” rather than an obligation, that there is no constitutional problem if the Chief Justice does not consult, and that past presidents ultimately respected the recommendation right. He added that a written recommendation is not limited by the Constitution, and that the National Assembly has no constitutional authority to create a candidate recommendation committee, so failing to honour it would be a political matter rather than a constitutional or legal violation. [ 6 , 8 , 9 ]
Ruling-party lawmakers criticised him, asking whether he was doing politics under the pretext of judicial independence and whether he dreamed of being “a second Yoon Suk-yeol”, Seoul Economic Daily reported; Cho responded that this was “insulting and sad”. Kang Yoo-jung, senior spokesperson at the presidential office, said its position had not changed and that it hopes the Chief Justice respects the candidate recommendation committee’s recommendations and proceeds with the re-recommendation as quickly as possible so that a long vacancy does not infringe citizens’ right to trial. [ 6 , 8 ]
Chosun Ilbo reported that the presidential office had argued the President’s appointment power is a superior concept to the Chief Justice’s recommendation right, and described Cho’s remarks as a direct rebuttal. The same outlet said it was the first time a Chief Justice had answered lawmakers’ questions at a National Assembly audit since audits resumed with the 1987 constitutional revision. SBS News reported the audit, marked by sharp exchanges between Cho and lawmakers of both parties, ended after 11 pm. [ 10 , 11 ]
On SBS’s Joo Young-jin News Briefing, Hankyoreh senior reporter Seong Han-yong said the re-recommendation has no constitutional basis and that, with no compromise line between the two parties, the wait would realistically last until June next year. Munhwa Ilbo former reporter Heo Min said “Supreme Court justice shopping” to erase the president’s wrongs cannot be accepted, and that using the recommendation right like a presidential prior permission destroys the constitutional spirit. [ 5 ]
The documents report no formal response from the Legislation and Judiciary Committee or the National Assembly to the statement, and no change to the re-recommendation procedure. [ 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]
Почему это важно
The remarks put an open conflict between the judiciary and the legislature on the record, at a time when the documents say Supreme Court seats have been vacant for a long period. How the standoff is handled bears on the re-recommendation process and on the practical balance among state branches, though the documents report no change to the procedure so far.
Ключевые факты
- Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on Oct 6 that the President and the National Assembly cannot be involved at all in the Chief Justice’s recommendation of Supreme Court justices. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]
- He said the Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s interference in the recommendation is unconstitutional and against the separation of powers set out in the Constitution and judicial independence. [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 ]
- He made the remarks at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s audit of the Supreme Court, after Democratic Party Rep. Kim Ki-pyo asked him to explain the re-recommendation dispute directly. [ 6 , 8 , 9 ]
- Newsis reported he read from prepared documents for 6 minutes 13 seconds and used the word “unconstitutional” four times. [ 9 ]
- He said the recommendation right is the Chief Justice’s exclusive authority under Article 104(2) of the Constitution and that past consultations with presidents were “arbitrary cooperation”, not an obligation. [ 6 , 8 , 9 ]
- Ruling-party lawmakers criticised him, and he responded that it was “insulting and sad”, according to Seoul Economic Daily. [ 6 ]
- The presidential office said its position was unchanged and asked the Chief Justice to respect the candidate recommendation committee’s recommendations and proceed with the re-recommendation as quickly as possible. [ 6 , 8 ]
- Chosun Ilbo reported it was the first time a Chief Justice had answered lawmakers’ questions at a National Assembly audit since audits resumed with the 1987 constitutional revision. [ 11 ]
Подтверждено несколькими источниками
- On Oct 6 Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said the President and the National Assembly cannot be involved at all in the Chief Justice’s recommendation of Supreme Court justices, and that the Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s interference is unconstitutional and against judicial independence. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]
- The statement was made at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s audit of the Supreme Court. [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]
- The presidential office maintained its position and urged the Chief Justice to proceed with the re-recommendation procedure as quickly as possible. [ 6 , 8 ]
Пока неясно
- What the dispute over the re-recommendation of Supreme Court justices involves, how many seats are vacant and for how long. The documents refer to a re-recommendation situation and a long vacancy but give no names, numbers or dates.
- Whether the Legislation and Judiciary Committee or the National Assembly has formally responded to the Chief Justice’s statement. No outlet in the documents reports a formal response; the SBS segment is a discussion among two journalists.
- Chosun Ilbo’s account that the presidential office argued the President’s appointment power is superior to the Chief Justice’s recommendation right and pressed him on that basis. Single-source framing reported only by Chosun Ilbo; the presidential office statement quoted in other documents does not repeat that argument.
- Whether the remarks changed the re-recommendation procedure. The documents report statements and reactions but no outcome.
Что пишут местные СМИ
Хронология, местное время
- Kukmin Ilbo publishes a report saying the Chief Justice took out documents and made determined remarks. [ 1 ]
- Newsis publishes the remarks as breaking news. [ 2 ]
- Yonhap publishes the same remarks. [ 3 ]
- Korea Economic Daily publishes the same remarks. [ 4 ]
- SBS’s weekday programme Joo Young-jin News Briefing, which runs 14:00–15:20, airs a panel discussion of the dispute. [ 5 ]
- SBS News publishes the panel segment. [ 5 ]
- Seoul Economic Daily publishes its account of the audit, the criticism and the presidential office response. [ 6 ]
- SBS News reports that the audit began amid confrontation over the Chief Justice’s refusal to take the witness oath. [ 7 ]
- Kyunghyang Shinmun publishes its account of the audit and the presidential office’s position. [ 8 ]
- The Supreme Court audit ends after passing 11 pm, according to SBS News. [ 10 ]
- Newsis publishes a fuller report detailing the 6-minute-13-second statement and four uses of the word “unconstitutional”. [ 9 ]
- SBS News publishes a follow-up on the audit and the exchanges. [ 10 ]
- Chosun Ilbo reports the remarks as a counterattack and says it was the first time a Chief Justice answered lawmakers’ questions at an audit since 1987. [ 11 ]