Parliamentary probe of chief justice raises fears of political interference
The ruling Democratic Party of Korea decided at a meeting of its lawmakers on Tuesday to pursue a parliamentary investigation into Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de. It plans to bring a related motion to a plenary session of the National Assembly on Nov. 5.
The party had previously floated impeaching the chief justice, but appears to have opted for an investigation out of concern of backlash from moderate voters. However, switching from impeachment to investigation does little to allay concerns about threats to judicial independence.
The timing is also troubling, as the ruling party’s push for an investigation coincides with its backlash against the recent appellate court acquittal of Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon of the opposition People Power Party. Blaming Jo, who had no involvement in the case, and threatening to impeach him simply because the court did not deliver the ruling the Democratic Party wanted seriously undermines judicial independence.
The party’s decision Tuesday to put its lawmakers on standby while urging the Supreme Court to extend former first lady Kim Keon Hee’s detention could likewise be seen as an attempt to exert political pressure on the judiciary.
If politicians expect courts to uphold the law and adhere to principle, they must first respect judicial independence.
The underlying dispute stems from a clash between President Lee Jae Myung and Jo over finding the successor to a retiring Supreme Court justice, after Lee rejected Jo’s initial recommendation.
Neither side, however, can be held solely responsible. The Constitution establishes a process for appointing Supreme Court justices: The chief justice recommends a successor and formally requests the appointment, the National Assembly holds a confirmation hearing and gives its consent, and the president makes the appointment.
The ruling camp should respect the constitutional intent to prevent any one branch of government from exercising unilateral control over Supreme Court appointments. If the Democratic Party simply sides with the president and pressures the chief justice through a parliamentary investigation, it risks deepening the conflict rather than resolving it.
The party readily discusses impeaching Jo, but Lee’s demand that he nominate another candidate and resubmit the recommendation for the appointment lacks a clear constitutional basis. Nor is it clear that Jo’s refusal to comply constitutes grounds for impeachment.
Suspending the chief justice from his duties could also have consequences the country can ill afford, including paralysis of the Supreme Court. Concerned about such repercussions, the party has chosen an investigation as a first step, despite calls for impeachment from its hard-line supporters.
Beyond the dispute over Jo’s refusal to comply with Lee’s demand, it is questionable whether the other allegations raised by the Democratic Party are serious enough to warrant a parliamentary investigation.
Regarding allegations that Jo was involved in the Dec. 3, 2024, martial law declaration, a special counsel team concluded in December last year that they were unfounded and decided not to indict him.
It is equally difficult to see what more the party hopes to uncover about Jo’s use of official business expenses and incentive payments to justices. The National Court Administration has already pledged, during a parliamentary audit, to change practices in question.
The investigation appears to be a pretext for finding grounds to impeach Jo. It is more likely to produce little of substance and serve as a platform for repeated political attacks. One must question whether its real purpose is to summon the chief justice and other judges to intimidate and harass them.
No parliamentary investigation into a chief justice has ever been conducted. The growing concern is that the ruling party, armed with its overwhelming parliamentary majority, is going too far in its efforts to control even the judiciary.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
