South Korea chief justice refuses oath at audit, denies martial law role
Version 3: The Oct. 6 audit has now taken place: Cho attended, gave a greeting and refused the witness oath, said the presidential office’s Aug. 28 re-recommendation request lacked a clear basis, argued that National Assembly involvement in the recommendation is unconstitutional, and denied any cooperation with the Dec. 3 martial law, saying he told officials not to send a list.
In short
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae attended the Supreme Court’s parliamentary audit at the National Assembly on Oct. 6, delivered a greeting and refused to take the witness oath, saying demands for testimony about his recommendation of Supreme Court justices could undermine the separation of powers and judicial independence. He said the presidential office’s Aug. 28 document asking him to re-recommend a justice did not clearly state reasons or a constitutional basis. The dispute stems from his refusal to re-recommend a successor to former Justice Noh Tae-ak.
Read the full story 3 min read
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae appeared at the Supreme Court’s parliamentary audit at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on Oct. 6, delivered a greeting and refused to take the witness oath, saying that demands for testimony about his recommendation of Supreme Court justices could undermine the separation of powers and judicial independence. Yonhap and Newsis reported the remark in breaking news, Seoul Economic Daily reported that he refused the oath, and Newsis reported that he gave only a greeting before sitting down. [ 9 , 10 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 26 ]
In his remarks, Cho explained why he had rejected the presidential office’s request to re-recommend a justice. Newsis and Yonhap reported him as saying that the official document sent on Aug. 28 did not clearly state specific reasons or a constitutional basis and that its intent was hard to understand. He said he had carefully reviewed candidates recommended by the Supreme Court justice candidate recommendation committee and continued consultations, but no final agreement was reached, after which he submitted the recommendation. He said he takes seriously the need to fill the vacancy and would make the necessary efforts for the Supreme Court to be fully constituted promptly. [ 19 , 20 , 26 , 30 ]
Cho also argued that the National Assembly cannot involve itself in the recommendation. Yonhap, Newsis and CBS NoCut News reported him as saying that the chief justice’s recommendation, the National Assembly’s consent and the president’s appointment are separate constitutional powers, and that forcing him to testify is an unconstitutional measure against judicial independence. He said his consultations with the president were not a constitutional obligation but voluntary cooperation, and that his exercise of the recommendation power ended once the appointment consent request was submitted. [ 21 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]
On the Dec. 3 martial law, Cho said he never cooperated. Yonhap, Newsis, Maeil Business, Korea Economic Daily, Seoul Economic Daily and Chosun Ilbo reported him as saying the martial law was unconstitutional, that he said so before any other institution, and that he instructed that a list not be sent. [ 21 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 33 ]
The dispute stems from Cho’s refusal to re-recommend a successor to former Supreme Court Justice Noh Tae-ak, over which Dong-A Ilbo, Maeil Business and Newsis reported he has been in conflict with the presidential office. Newsis reported that the presidential office’s August document concerned Son Bong-ki, a Daegu District Court senior judge whom Cho had recommended as Noh’s successor. [ 2 , 4 , 30 , 31 ]
Reactions split along party lines. The Democratic Party criticised the refusal, with committee chair Suh Young-kyo calling it “삼권분립 위반”, a violation of the separation of powers, and “법 위에 군림하고자 하는 독단”, arbitrariness seeking to stand above the law, according to SBS News; Maeil Business reported the party demanded his resignation. SBS News reported the People Power Party called the pressure on the head of the judiciary “intimidation politics”. Under the usual practice, the chief justice gives a greeting at the Supreme Court audit and then leaves, with the head of the National Court Administration answering questions; SBS News reported Cho did the same at last year’s audit, leaving after about an hour without taking the oath or answering questions. [ 3 , 5 ]
Why it matters
The standoff pits the head of the judiciary against the legislature, and in the background the presidential office, over how far parliament can question the chief justice’s constitutional appointment powers. The committee chair has said the party would decide on legal measures depending on how Cho responds, so the confrontation could move from the hearing room to a legal fight. How the audit handles the chief justice’s attendance also sets a precedent for future Supreme Court audits.
Key facts
- Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae submitted a non-attendance opinion to the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Oct. 2, ahead of the Oct. 6 Supreme Court audit. [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 ]
- Cho said disclosing the content of his consultations with the president, and sensitive details of pending personnel matters including nominees’ identities, was not appropriate. [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 ]
- Cho argued that requiring him to testify about the recommendation power runs against the separation of powers and judicial independence and does not fit the National Assembly Act, which he said imposes no attendance or answer duty on the chief justice. [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 ]
- On Oct. 6 Cho attended the audit, gave a greeting and refused to take the witness oath, saying testimony on justice recommendations could undermine the separation of powers and judicial independence. [ 15 , 18 , 19 , 26 ]
- Cho said the presidential office’s Aug. 28 document requesting re-recommendation did not clearly state specific reasons or a constitutional basis, Yonhap and Newsis reported. [ 19 , 20 , 26 , 30 ]
- Cho said the National Assembly cannot involve itself in the recommendation of Supreme Court justices, calling such intervention unconstitutional. [ 21 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]
- Cho said he never cooperated with the Dec. 3 martial law and instructed that a list not be sent. [ 21 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 33 ]
- The dispute concerns the re-recommendation of a successor to former Supreme Court Justice Noh Tae-ak, over which Cho has been in conflict with the presidential office. [ 2 , 4 , 30 , 31 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae submitted a non-attendance opinion to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Oct. 2 concerning the Supreme Court’s parliamentary audit. [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 ]
- Cho said disclosing the content of his consultations with the president, and sensitive details of pending personnel matters including nominees’ identities, is not appropriate. [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 ]
- Cho argued that requiring him to testify about his recommendation power runs against the separation of powers and judicial independence and does not fit the National Assembly Act, which he said imposes no attendance or answer duty on the chief justice. [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 ]
- Cho cited the possibility of investigative procedures following a complaint over his exercise of the recommendation power as a reason for not attending as a witness. [ 1 , 5 ]
- On Oct. 6 Cho attended the Supreme Court audit, gave a greeting and refused to take the witness oath, saying testimony on justice recommendations could undermine the separation of powers and judicial independence. [ 15 , 18 , 19 , 26 ]
- The dispute stems from Cho’s refusal to re-recommend a successor to former Supreme Court Justice Noh Tae-ak, over which he has been in conflict with the presidential office. [ 2 , 4 , 30 , 31 ]
- Cho said the presidential office’s Aug. 28 document requesting re-recommendation did not clearly state specific reasons or a constitutional basis and that its intent was hard to understand. [ 19 , 20 , 26 , 30 ]
- The Democratic Party criticised the refusal, with committee chair Suh Young-kyo calling it a violation of the separation of powers, and Maeil Business reported the party demanded his resignation. [ 3 , 5 ]
- Cho said he never cooperated with the Dec. 3 martial law and instructed that a list not be sent. [ 21 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 33 ]
- Cho said the National Assembly’s involvement in the recommendation of justices is unconstitutional. [ 21 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]
Still unclear
- What happened in the audit after Cho gave his greeting and sat down, and whether he answered questions during the rest of the session. The documents end with reports filed as he spoke, with no later account.
- Whether the committee will take legal measures against Cho. SBS News reported the party would decide after seeing how Cho responds, and no decision is reported.
- Who filed the complaint over Cho’s exercise of the recommendation power and what its status is. Cho referred to the complaint only as a reason for not attending as a witness; the documents give no details.
- The People Power Party’s characterisation of the pressure on the head of the judiciary as “intimidation politics”. Reported only by SBS News.
- That the presidential office’s August document concerned Son Bong-ki, a Daegu District Court senior judge whom Cho had recommended as successor to former Justice Noh Tae-ak. Reported only by Newsis, in a truncated account.
- Whether the presidential office or the committee responded to Cho’s account of the Aug. 28 document. No response from either appears in the documents.
What local media are saying
Timeline, local time
- Oct. 4: Maeil Business reports that Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae told the Legislation and Judiciary Committee he will not attend the Supreme Court audit as a witness, citing the impropriety of disclosing his consultations with the president and the separation of powers. [ 1 ]
- Oct. 4: Dong-A Ilbo reports that Cho, in conflict with the presidential office over the re-recommendation of a successor to former Justice Noh Tae-ak, submitted a non-attendance statement on Oct. 2. [ 2 ]
- Oct. 4: SBS News reports the Democratic Party criticised the decision and the People Power Party called the pressure “intimidation politics”, and that Cho said on Sept. 28 he would explain the matter at the audit. [ 5 ]
- Oct. 6: Yonhap and Newsis report in breaking news that Cho said at the Supreme Court audit that demands for testimony on justice recommendations could undermine the separation of powers and judicial independence. [ 9 , 10 ]
- Oct. 6: Seoul Economic Daily reports that Cho refused the witness oath, saying it is difficult to respond to the demand for testimony on the justice re-recommendation. [ 15 ]
- Oct. 6: Newsis reports that Cho gave only a greeting and then sat down, saying the presidential office’s Aug. 28 document did not clearly state specific reasons or a constitutional basis, and that the National Court Administration head would answer questions or he would answer in closing remarks. [ 19 ]
- Oct. 6: Yonhap reports in a comprehensive story that Cho said National Assembly involvement in the chief justice’s recommendation is unconstitutional. [ 30 ]
- Oct. 6: Newsis and CBS NoCut News report Cho calling the demand for testimony an unconstitutional measure against judicial independence; Maeil Business reports his denial of any cooperation with the Dec. 3 martial law. [ 28 , 31 , 32 ]