Settled
Verified
Ruling party presses chief justice to testify at audit; opposition protests
Version 2: The report now covers the following day's developments: the People Power Party rejected the summons as an unprecedented “bullying” of the judiciary and said the president should appear instead, the committee held the audit on Oct. 6 as scheduled, and lawmakers clashed in the room over whether the chief justice should be allowed to leave, with one outlet reporting he did not testify but stayed.
In short
South Korea's Legislation and Judiciary Committee held its Supreme Court audit on Oct. 6, where ruling and opposition lawmakers clashed over whether Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae should take the witness stand. Cho submitted an opinion letter on Oct. 2 saying it was difficult for him to appear as a witness, citing judicial independence and the possibility of investigations; the Democratic Party demanded he appear or resign, while the People Power Party called the summons an unprecedented “bullying” of the judiciary and said the president should appear instead. The Seoul Economic Daily reported that Cho did not testify but stayed in the room instead of leaving.
Why it matters
The standoff pits the legislature's audit power against the chief justice's claim of judicial independence, and the ruling party has publicly raised his resignation as an option if he does not attend. It is tied to an unresolved dispute between the presidential office and the Supreme Court over the re-recommendation of a Supreme Court justice, which now moves into the audit room. The documents show no resolution, and the accounts of what happened at the Oct. 6 session come largely from a single outlet.
Key facts
- The Legislation and Judiciary Committee adopted Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae as a general witness for the Supreme Court's parliamentary audit on Sept. 28, with People Power Party lawmakers walking out. [ 3 , 7 , 8 ]
- Cho submitted an opinion letter to the committee on Oct. 2 saying it was difficult for him to appear and answer as a witness. [ 1 , 3 , 7 , 8 ]
- In the letter, Cho argued that testifying about his constitutionally independent power to recommend Supreme Court justices would run against the separation of powers reflected in Article 104(2) of the constitution, and cited Article 121 of the National Assembly Act. [ 1 , 7 ]
- Committee chair Suh Young-kyo said at an Oct. 4 press conference that Cho was obliged to appear under the National Assembly Testimony and Appraisal Act and that not attending would violate the National Assembly Act. [ 1 , 3 ]
- Party spokesperson Lee Yong-woo said Cho should appear at the Oct. 6 audit and account to the public, or resign. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]
- Democratic Party floor spokesperson Lee Joo-hee said Cho was summoned as a general witness under Article 129, not as an institution head under Article 121, and “cannot be an exception,” adding that non-appearance without cause is subject to criminal punishment. [ 7 , 8 ]
- On Oct. 6, party floor leader Han Byung-do urged Cho to explain a Supreme Court justice vacancy he said had lasted 217 days and an increase of nearly a month in the time taken to handle criminal appeals. [ 9 , 11 ]
- People Power Party floor leader Jung Jeom-sik called the summons one-sided and unprecedented, and party lawmaker Park Hyung-soo said President Lee Jae-myung should be the one to appear over the re-recommendation request. [ 8 , 10 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae submitted an opinion letter stating that appearing and answering as a witness at the Supreme Court's parliamentary audit would be difficult. [ 1 , 3 , 7 , 8 ]
- The Legislation and Judiciary Committee decided on Sept. 28 to call Cho as a general witness, with People Power Party members walking out. [ 3 , 7 , 8 ]
- The Democratic Party publicly demanded that Cho appear and account to the public, and said he should resign if he would not attend. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]
- The Supreme Court audit is scheduled for Oct. 6 and is chaired by Legislation and Judiciary Committee chair Suh Young-kyo. [ 1 , 3 , 7 , 10 ]
- The People Power Party said the witness summons was one-sided, lacked legitimacy and was unprecedented. [ 6 , 8 ]
Still unclear
- Whether Chief Justice Cho attended the Oct. 6 session, gave a greeting and stayed without testifying, or left the room. Only Seoul Economic Daily describes what happened at the session, reporting that Cho said he would not testify but would remain; the other documents were published before or during the meeting.
- The precise wording and full contents of Cho's opinion letter. Yonhap presents the passages as contents conveyed to it rather than a published text, and Kyunghyang Shinmun paraphrases them; no outlet publishes the letter itself.
- Whether the Democratic Party will pursue follow-up measures such as impeachment against Cho. A Newsis headline mentions that impeachment was raised, but the article text available does not specify who raised it or what was proposed, and no other outlet reports it.
- Whether the committee or the party will take any formal step against Cho for non-appearance. Documents report statements, warnings of criminal punishment under the law and the possibility of follow-up measures, but no decision or action is documented.
What local media are saying
Official sourcesThe official-tier wire carried the ruling party's case in detail, including the committee chair's press conference remarks, the party spokesperson's briefing and the contents attributed to Cho's opinion letter, and on Oct. 6 it reported the floor leader's demand that Cho explain the justice vacancy. It reported little or no comment from the Supreme Court or the chief justice beyond the letter.
[
1
,
9
]
Business mediaThe business-tier outlets carried both sides. Chosun Ilbo reported the ruling party's demand that Cho appear or resign and, the next day, the two parties' clash, with the People Power Party calling the summons “the National Assembly's high-handedness.” Kyunghyang Shinmun added procedural background: the Sept. 28 committee decision, the Oct. 2 letter and how the session might unfold. Newsis reported the ruling party's pressure and its mention of impeachment, then the opposition's response. Seoul Economic Daily covered the Oct. 6 session's argument over whether Cho should be allowed to leave. SBS News carried the floor leader's Oct. 6 remarks on the justice vacancy.
[
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6
,
7
,
8
,
10
,
11
]
Timeline, local time
- Yonhap reports that the Democratic Party says Chief Justice Cho conveyed he will not comply with the committee's witness summons, and that the party is pressing him to appear on Oct. 6 or resign. [ 1 ]
- Chosun Ilbo reports the party's demand that Cho appear and explain to the public, or step down immediately. [ 2 ]
- Kyunghyang Shinmun reports that Cho submitted an opinion letter and that the party is pressing him to appear or resign, noting expectations he may not take questions at the audit. [ 3 ]
- Newsis reports the ruling party's demand that Cho be held to account while the opposition describes the pressure as intimidation politics. [ 4 ]
- Chosun Ilbo reports that the two parties clashed a day before the audit, with the Democratic Party demanding Cho's attendance and the People Power Party calling it the National Assembly's high-handedness. [ 6 ]
- Newsis reports that the ruling party is pressing Cho to attend and has signaled follow-up measures, with impeachment also being mentioned. [ 7 ]
- Yonhap reports Democratic Party floor leader Han Byung-do saying that ignoring the National Assembly is ignoring the public and that Cho should appear as a witness. [ 9 ]
- The Legislation and Judiciary Committee begins its audit of the Supreme Court, the Court Administration, the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Policy Research Institute at the National Assembly in Yeouido. [ 7 ]
- Seoul Economic Daily reports shouting between the parties over whether Cho should be allowed to leave, and that Cho said he would not testify but would remain in the room. [ 10 ]
- SBS News reports Han Byung-do urging Cho to explain the justice vacancy and the longer handling times for criminal appeals. [ 11 ]