The Democratic Party of Korea plans to hold a confirmation hearing for Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae on the 14th. The Supreme Court ruled on the 1st that Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea's presidential candidate, was guilty in a case involving the violation of the Public Official Election Act, leading to a remand, prompting the call for the Chief Justice to explain to the National Assembly, citing reasons such as the acceleration of the hearing.
It is unprecedented in constitutional history for the National Assembly to summon the Chief Justice for a confirmation hearing. The reason the National Assembly has not held confirmation hearings for the Chief Justice until now can be seen as a respect for the independence of the judiciary.
Four years ago, the Democratic Party also opposed the People Power Party's proposal to summon then-Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo as a witness, expressing concerns that 'indiscriminate questioning could arise regarding all controversial trials.'
The discussions in the National Assembly at that time are well documented in the minutes. On Feb. 17, 2021, the National Assembly's Judiciary Committee voted on whether to add the agenda item 'Request for the appearance of Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo' to the meeting.
At that time, there were allegations that former Chief Justice Kim had rejected the resignation of then-Pusan High Court Director General Im Seong-keun, citing that 'the Democratic Party is discussing the impeachment of judges' as a reason. In response, former Chief Justice Kim clarified that he never rejected the resignation due to impeachment, but former Director General Im released recordings, indicating that the clarification was false.
Ultimately, in the vote by the Judiciary Committee, 12 out of 18 present members opposed the demand for the Chief Justice's appearance. All 12 opposing members were from the Democratic Party.
During the full meeting of the Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party lawmaker Baek Hye-ryeon noted, 'The demand for the Chief Justice's appearance before the National Assembly poses a very significant risk of undermining the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, which is why the Chief Justices have not appeared in the Judiciary Committee despite various issues raised against them until now.' She added, 'If a precedent is set for the Chief Justice, who handles trials, to appear before the National Assembly, it could open the door to indiscriminate questioning regarding all controversial trials, leading to very dangerous situations.'
Moreover, since the restoration of the right to conduct government audits in 1988, there has been no instance of the National Assembly selecting the Chief Justice as a witness for government audits.
One legal professional remarked, 'Considering the Constitution's intent to strictly separate legislative, executive, and judicial powers, the National Assembly has refrained from summoning the Chief Justice to the National Assembly itself, but this confirmation hearing seems to have crossed a line.'
Concerns have also been raised that the National Assembly's demand for the Chief Justice's appearance may violate the Government Audit Act. Article 8 of the Government Audit Act states, 'Audits or investigations shall not be conducted for the purpose of infringing upon an individual's privacy or interfering with ongoing trials or investigations.'
The upcoming confirmation hearing for the Chief Justice is expected to relate to the hearing process in the case of Lee Jae-myung's violation of the Public Official Election Act. However, since this case is ongoing in a remand trial, it may constitute a violation of the law for the Chief Justice to participate in the hearing and make any statements regarding this case.
A legal professional, who is a former Director General, stated, 'The very fact that a precedent is set for the Chief Justice to appear at a National Assembly confirmation hearing could hinder the independence of the judiciary,' adding that 'the National Assembly should reconsider holding this hearing or the Supreme Court should establish clear criteria regarding the Chief Justice's appearance.'