The main opposition party’s boycott of a parliamentary confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court justice nominee can hardly be justified. It may only deepen public concern about whether the New Politics Alliance for Democracy is really committed to abiding by the principles of procedural democracy.

Under an agreement reached between the rival parties last month, the hearing for Park Sang-ok, a former prosecutor who was nominated as Supreme Court justice in January, was scheduled to be held on Feb. 11. But a group of NPAD lawmakers tasked with handling his confirmation process refused to hold it after a controversy erupted over his role in the 1987 investigation of police officers accused of torturing a student activist to death. At the time, the prosecution came under criticism after Catholic priests revealed there were more police officers involved in the torture death case than those it had indicted.

The NPAD has claimed the justice nominee was responsible for the cover-up, urging him to withdraw his name from the nomination. In their meeting Tuesday, party lawmakers decided to boycott Park’s confirmation hearing during the ongoing National Assembly session that continues through next Wednesday.

As an NPAD lawmaker presides over the parliamentary panel in charge of the hearing that should precede the Assembly’s approval vote, the opposition’s cooperation is essential to proceed with the confirmation process of the justice nominee.

Park has insisted he played no role in the cover-up and was transferred to a different district office while preparing for an additional probe into the torture death case, which triggered a nationwide pro-democracy uprising against the authoritarian rule under then-President Chun Doo-hwan.

A parliamentary hearing is necessary to verify his claim. It makes little sense for the opposition party to make an accusation against the justice nominee beforehand and deny him even an opportunity to explain himself. It is one of the purposes of introducing the parliamentary hearing system to clarify the truth when a nominee for a high public office is embroiled in controversy over his integrity and morality.

If Park turns out to be implicated in the cover-up as the opposition suspects, lawmakers may well vote to disapprove of his confirmation motion.

From a sympathetic viewpoint, it might be too much to hold Park, a novice prosecutor in 1987, responsible for failing to justly handle the case at a time when even top prosecutors were not free of pressure from the iron-fisted ruler. Being shunned by lawmakers seems somewhat unfair to Park, given that another prosecutor, who led the investigation in question as a senior to him, won parliamentary approval to become a Constitutional Court justice in 1994.

The criticism of the NPAD applying double standards is amplified by its participation in the confirmation hearing and vote for Prime Minister Lee Wan-koo this month. His qualification for the No. 2 post in the executive branch was seriously questioned by allegations of severe ethical lapses.

When Lee called on NPAD floor leader Woo Yoon-keun on Tuesday, both of them became tearful when Woo expressed regret over the opposition party’s tough treatment of Lee, his former counterpart from the ruling Saenuri Party, throughout the confirmation process. Whatever bond they might have forged as top negotiators of the main parties, onlookers seemed largely unsympathetic with the tearful scene.

Woo and other NPAD lawmakers may have to apologize more sincerely for neglecting their duty by blocking the confirmation process of the justice nominee. A bench in the 14-member Supreme Court has been left unoccupied since a justice retired last week. A prolonged vacancy will undermine the function of the judiciary and ultimately damage the people’s interests.