Supreme Court of Korea Chief Justice Jo Hee-de arrives at the court in Seocho-gu, southern Seoul, Monday. (Yonhap)
Supreme Court of Korea Chief Justice Jo Hee-de arrives at the court in Seocho-gu, southern Seoul, Monday. (Yonhap)

Amid intensifying controversy over impartiality of court, Democratic Party of Korea calls for special counsel

Controversy surrounding the independence and impartiality of South Korea's judiciary intensified Wednesday. Politicians are locked in debate over the Supreme Court’s unusually fast ruling that reversed a lower court's verdict and thereby convicted Lee Jae-myung, the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party of Korea, for spreading false information during the 2022 presidential race, which he lost.

Amid growing public scrutiny, the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, led by the Democratic Party, summoned Chief Justice Jo Hee-de to appear at a parliamentary hearing scheduled for Wednesday to explain the court’s handling of the case. However, the Supreme Court submitted a statement on Monday afternoon saying that it would be difficult for Jo and other justices to attend "for various reasons."

Rep. Jung Chung-rae, chair of the committee, criticized the Supreme Court.

“This is why there is a high level of public consensus on the need for a parliamentary investigation and a special prosecutor,” Jung wrote in a Facebook post on Tuesday.

In a coordinated response, 70 first-term lawmakers from the Democratic Party, submitted a bill calling for a special counsel to investigate the Supreme Court based on "the judiciary's intervention in the election starting on May 1, by reversing Lee's not guilty verdict to guilty and remanding the case in just 34 days, referring the case to a full bench within just two hours and making a ruling in just nine days."

Rep. Lee Jae-gang, who proposed the motion, said, "The Supreme Court went beyond the limits of legal review by making a ruling amid the suspicion that it did not even fully read the case's 70,000 pages of records," suggesting "the intervention of extrajudicial pressure."

The bill called for a special counsel to investigate and "restore the independence and fairness of the judiciary."

Former conservative People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon condemned the bill, accusing the Democratic Party as a party of "political thuggery."

Nine former presidents of the Korean Bar Association also expressed their opposition to the proposed bill for a special prosecutor and parliamentary hearing.

“The Supreme Court handled the election law case promptly in accordance with the law. It is inappropriate to label this as political interference. Holding the chief justice accountable for individual rulings threatens judicial independence and prevents judges from ruling the case according to the law and conscience,” said the former presidents in their joint statement on May 8.

The controversy has flared since the Supreme Court decided to take up Lee’s case in a full court session on April 22.

The Supreme Court announced it would hold a first hearing on the same day it assigned the case to the justices. The second hearing was then held on April 24, just two days later. Such a rapid pace is highly unusual for cases referred to a full bench, which typically meets just once a month.

Meanwhile, a number of judges have called on Jo to take responsibility for questions being raised about the judiciary’s political impartiality.

“The chief justice’s personal and political misconduct led to public distrust in the judiciary and jeopardized its members,” Kim Joo-ok, presiding judge of the Seoul Central District Court, said in an online post on the court’s intranet.

Another judge at the Busan District Court also questioned whether Jo’s actions reflected those of a true chief justice.

According to the National Association of Judges, judges representing courts nationwide have decided to hold an emergency meeting to discuss growing concerns surrounding Lee’s election law violation case, the court’s political neutrality and damage to the judiciary on May 26.

On claims that the justices failed to read the 60,000-70,000 pages of Lee's case records, Chun Dae-yup, chief of the National Court Administration, said the Supreme Court is required to make decisions based on the grounds for appeal submitted by the prosecution. He made the comment during questioning sessions held at the National Assembly on May 2, the day after the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling on Lee.

According to Chun, Supreme Court justices can take individual approaches to review the case by examining the entire record or focusing on relevant parts.

Chun’s remark sparked yet more backlash over public trust in the country’s judicial system.

“If the top court’s justices ‘selectively’ review the case, who can have faith in their ruling?” one person commented on the Supreme Court of Korea’s YouTube video featuring its court verdict on Lee.

“People should humbly accept the court’s decision. Swaying the court with groundless controversies will damage the rule of law,” another comment read.


sj_lee@heraldcorp.com