The Blue House and Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae are engaged in a heated dispute over the nomination of Supreme Court candidates. After the Chief Justice rejected the Blue House's request for a re-nomination, citing a lack of clear reasons in the official correspondence, the Blue House strongly countered, accusing him of undermining the President's constitutional appointment authority and distorting the facts.
This conflict has escalated into an unprecedented confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, fueled by political disputes and divided opinions within the legal community.
Blue House: "Misleading Official Correspondence" vs. Cho Hee-dae: "Must Provide Clear Reasons"
The conflict began with a letter sent by the Blue House to the Supreme Court on August 28, requesting the rejection of Judge Son Bong-ki, who was nominated by Chief Justice Cho as a successor to the retired Justice Noh Tae-ack. After remaining silent for an extended period, Chief Justice Cho expressed his refusal on September 22, stating that the request lacked clear legal grounds and that claims of procedural flaws in the nomination process were difficult to accept.
In response, the Blue House issued a statement immediately refuting the Chief Justice's claims. A Blue House official explained, "The failure to submit a nomination agreement to the National Assembly itself indicates a clear rejection of the appointment, which is the reason for the re-nomination request."
The Blue House also criticized the Supreme Court for contacting candidates recommended by the nomination committee to inquire about their willingness to withdraw, calling it a significant procedural flaw that undermined fairness.
Furthermore, the Blue House emphasized the constitutional significance of the President's appointment power. They argued that if the Chief Justice's nomination is seen as a formal authority that the President must follow, it would undermine the President's appointment power, which is derived from being elected by the people. This position draws comparisons to the historical context of constitutional drafting and the appointment authority of constitutional judges, clarifying that the President possesses substantial veto power in Supreme Court appointments.
Political Parties in Direct Conflict: Ruling Party Calls It "Treasonous Delay" vs. Opposition Claims "Destruction of Separation of Powers"
The political confrontation is intensifying. Ruling party members, including Han Byeong-do, the floor leader of the Democratic Party, and Seo Young-kyo, chair of the National Assembly's Judiciary Committee, visited the Supreme Court on September 23 to strongly condemn Chief Justice Cho.
Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok went further, stating at a Supreme Council meeting that the unprecedented unconstitutional and illegal rejection of the re-nomination request is a treasonous delay that disregards the public. He warned of potential inquiries at the National Assembly level, a national investigation, and the possibility of a special prosecutor.
In contrast, Jang Dong-hyuk, leader of the People Power Party, claimed that President Yoon Suk-yeol is insisting on Justice Kim Min-ki to secure a not guilty verdict in his own trial. He countered the ruling party's visit to the Supreme Court by stating, "The public is watching who is shaking the constitutional order and undermining the separation of powers."
The People Power Party has also filed a constitutional complaint regarding the President's failure to submit the nomination agreement and the request for re-nomination.
Legal Community Divided: Hanbyeon Supports "Constitutional Protection" vs. Minbyeon Claims "Breakdown of Mutual Cooperation"
The legal community is also divided over the situation. The conservative lawyer group Hanbyeon issued a statement on September 23 supporting Chief Justice Cho's rejection of the re-nomination request, urging the President and the Democratic Party to respect the Supreme Court's nomination process as outlined in the Constitution.
Hanbyeon emphasized that the Chief Justice's rejection is a constitutionally sound decision and demonstrates the resolve to uphold the Constitution as the head of the judiciary, asserting that the Chief Justice's nomination authority is not subordinate to the President's appointment power.
Meanwhile, the nonprofit lawyer group "People Making Good Laws" expressed deep concern over the reality that the legitimate exercise of constitutional authority is being discussed in the context of impeachment. They urged the President to withdraw the re-nomination request lacking constitutional and legal grounds and to promptly submit the nomination agreement to the National Assembly as previously made.
On the other hand, the progressive group Minbyeon called for a responsible attitude from the Chief Justice. The Minbyeon Judicial Center criticized that the nomination of justices is both a constitutional authority and an obligation of the Chief Justice, stating that failing to follow the nomination process violates the spirit of the Constitution and undermines the cooperative appointment process among the three branches of government. They added that the right of the public to receive a fair trial should not be compromised due to inter-institutional disputes.
Will It Go to the Constitutional Court? The Boundary Between "Nomination Power vs. Appointment Power" Is the Key Issue
As this conflict escalates into an unprecedented confrontation, the legal debate surrounding the constitutional boundaries of "nomination power and appointment power" is likely to fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Article 104, Section 2 of the Constitution states, "Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President with the consent of the National Assembly upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice."
Legal experts are divided on the scope of the President's appointment power and whether it infringes upon the Chief Justice's nomination authority. Generally, legal scholars with backgrounds in constitutional law argue that the President possesses a substantial veto power over appointments. However, there is also significant opposition arguing that the President's act of withholding the nomination agreement from the National Assembly infringes upon its consent authority.
Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that if the President blocks the National Assembly's consent process without explicit grounds or coerces a re-nomination that leads to the exclusion of specific candidates, it could undermine the Chief Justice's nomination authority.
The critical question is whether the Constitutional Court will reach a substantive judgment on this matter. A key variable is the issue of "standing to sue." In the past, the Constitutional Court has dismissed cases where individual lawmakers attempted to challenge infringements on the National Assembly's authority, as seen in the 2015 WTO Government Procurement Agreement case. Although the National Assembly itself successfully brought a case regarding the non-appointment of Constitutional Justice Ma Eun-hye last year, the current situation differs as the consent process has not yet commenced.
If the Constitutional Court recognizes standing, it will need to determine whether the President has a constitutional obligation to submit the nomination agreement for the candidates recommended. However, if a dismissal is issued due to a lack of procedural requirements, a fundamental judgment on the boundary between the Chief Justice's nomination power and the President's appointment power may be postponed.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.