Han's nomination of Constitutional Court justices stirs controversy, strife
Acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo nominated Minister of Government Legislature Lee Wan-kyu and Seoul High Court senior judge Ham Sang-hoon as successors to Constitutional Court Justices Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-son, who retire from their posts on April 18.
Han appointed Ma Eun-hyuk as a justice of the court. If Lee and Ham are appointed following confirmation hearings, all nine seats of the Constitutional Court will at last be filled.
Han is the first acting president to exercise the right to nominate Constitutional Court justices.
Under the Constitution, the president is able to nominate three Constitutional Court justices. The two outgoing justices had previously been nominated by then-President Moon Jae-in in 2019, so their vacancies are to be filled by the president.
The Constitutional Court comprises nine justices. Three are nominated by the National Assembly and three by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The right to formally appoint all nine Constitutional Court justices belongs to the president.
Han said he considered a bill pending in the National Assembly to impeach the deputy prime minister for economy as well as the ongoing impeachment trial of the ex-national police commissioner.
If Constitutional Court rulings on impeachment cases are delayed due to vacancies on the bench, presidential election management, preparations for a potential extra budget and responses to trade issues could be disrupted, Han said.
Han's nomination of replacements to prevent the government from becoming debilitated looks inevitable to some degree, but it is hard to avoid controversy over whether he exceeded his authority.
The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea said it is considering impeaching Han again, seeking judgment on a competence dispute and applying for an injunction against the nominations.
Democratic Party of Korea leader Rep. Lee Jae-myung argued that the president appoints Constitutional Court justices and that acting President Han lacks that authority.
There are no constitutional or legal provisions as to whether an acting president is qualified to nominate or appoint Constitutional Court justices.
The scope of authority the acting president can exercise is an issue that cannot be concluded quickly because opinion diverges even among legal experts.
However, considering impeachment cases and their influence on state affairs, the inevitability of preventing vacancies in the Constitutional Court is to some extent understandable.
The exercise of constitutional authority is a grave matter, so provisions on the authority of the acting president need to be made on this occasion.
The Democratic Party put pressure on Han to appoint all three nominees selected by the National Assembly. It argued the court should not fall into a powerless state due to the vacancies.
The real purpose of its argument was the removal of Yoon Suk Yeol from the office of president.
When Han did not bow to the pressure, the opposition impeached him. Then it pressed Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok to appoint the nominees.
It is contradictory for the party to pressure Han and Choi to appoint justices and then oppose Han's step to fill the vacancies of the court. The party's opposition is seen as an intention to control the Constitutional Court through the appointment of justices by a Democratic Party president.
Han's actions are not consistent, either.
He shelved the three appointments and was impeached. Now — after his impeachment was not upheld by the court — he has appointed Ma and nominated justices despite controversies.
Both sides — the government and ruling party on one hand and the opposition party on the other — appear to be grappling with each other to appoint the justices they prefer.
The outgoing justices, Moon and Lee, are regarded as liberal, while the two new nominees, Lee and Ham, are viewed as conservative.
Depending on who nominates justices, partiality in appointment is inevitable to some extent. But if it intensifies conflicts for a protracted time, the prestige and trust of the Constitutional Court will fall and social division will deepen.
Clashes over the Constitutional Court have persisted for more than three months since Yoon was impeached in December last year.
The Constitutional Court seems to have become a battlefield where the government and ruling People Power Party fight the Democratic Party for an advantageous position. It should escape the vortex of political strife.
