Chief Justice Jo Hee-de cited Article 104 of the Constitution at a parliamentary audit of the Supreme Court on the 6th, stressing the independence of his power to nominate Supreme Court justices. "Just as the chief justice cannot take part at all in the National Assembly's consent process or the president's appointment process, neither the National Assembly nor the president can take part at all in the chief justice's nomination," Jo said. "For the National Assembly to interfere in the nomination is an unconstitutional measure that runs counter to the division of powers among institutions expressly set out in the Constitution and to the independence of the judiciary." On the practice of consulting in advance before nominating justices, he said it "has no constitutional basis and has been a matter of cooperation to ensure smooth appointments." His remarks are read as a deliberate rebuttal, grounded in the separation of powers, to pressure from the presidential office and the ruling party over the nomination power.
Under the Constitution, the chief justice nominates candidates for the Supreme Court, the National Assembly decides whether to consent, and the president exercises the final power of appointment. The intent is for the three branches to appoint suitable justices through mutual checks and balances. Even so, when the chief justice declined to nominate candidates to the presidential office's liking, Cheong Wa Dae demanded a renomination, pointing to a lapse in prior consultation that amounts to nothing more than custom. The stance treats the chief justice as if he were subordinate to the president. Jo said the official document requesting a renomination "did not clearly state specific grounds or a constitutional basis," adding that he "judged it difficult to proceed with the follow-up steps."
The Democratic Party of Korea and its allies warned the same day that Jo's refusal to renominate constituted "grounds for impeachment." When Jo declined to take the witness oath and testify, citing judicial independence, they also raised the prospect of "legal action." Some did not hesitate to make personal attacks, asking whether he was "dreaming of becoming a second Yoon Suk-yeol" and whether he was "doing politics in judicial robes." It is hardly surprising that Jo countered that it was "deeply humiliating and disheartening."
Judicial independence is not a privilege of judges but a constitutional safeguard for citizens' basic rights against undue interference by political power. If the National Assembly keeps using its majority to shake the judiciary, the harm will ultimately fall on the public. Above all, as vacancies on the Supreme Court drag on, there are serious concerns about delays in trials. The proper course is for the legislature, the executive and the judiciary to respect the separation of powers and seek a solution through the procedures set out in the Constitution and the law.
