Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de leaves the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on Nov. 28. Yonhap News
The ruling Democratic Party of Korea on the 29th urged Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de to “move swiftly with the renomination process” for a Supreme Court justice candidate.
Jeon Eun-soo, the party’s floor spokesperson, said in a written briefing that “the chief justice’s power of nomination is an authority that must be exercised with respect for the actual appointment power.” The spokesperson added that “the practice of consultation is also a procedural mechanism that has substantively supported judicial independence through mutual respect among constitutional bodies.”
The presidential office a day earlier sent the National Assembly a consent motion only for Kim Sung-soo, a senior judge at the Seoul High Court, who had been nominated to succeed Justice Lee Heung-koo. For Son Bong-gi, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court, who was nominated at the same time, the presidential office asked Jo to submit a new nomination.
Jo had nominated the two judges as Supreme Court justice candidates on the 18th. He submitted the nominations in writing without prior coordination with the presidential office, and the controversy widened because Son faces strong objections within the ruling bloc.
Jeon said that “the chief justice’s unilateral written nomination is an act that directly dismantles the spirit of the Constitution,” adding that “delaying the nomination for more than seven months without any explanation is also an abandonment of the duty granted by the Constitution.” The spokesperson said that “the power of nomination does not replace the power of appointment but supports its proper exercise,” stressing that the appointment of a Supreme Court justice is a joint undertaking of the three branches, completed through the chief justice’s nomination, the National Assembly’s consent and the president’s appointment.
Turning to the opposition People Power Party, Jeon said it “is claiming that the power of nomination is the exclusive authority of the chief justice,” and criticized the argument as “the very thing that undermines the separation of powers, by downgrading the appointment power of elected authority to a formal procedure.” The spokesperson added, “We hope they stop the political offensive that disguises the president’s legitimate exercise of constitutional authority as a ‘judiciary takeover.'”