A standoff between South Korea's rival parties over the presidential office's request to renominate a Supreme Court justice candidate is escalating. The Democratic Party of Korea pressed Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, calling the request a legitimate exercise of presidential authority, while the People Power Party countered that it amounted to an unprecedented attempt to seize control of the judiciary and raised the prospect of impeaching the president.
Democratic Party members of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee held a press briefing at the National Assembly on the 30th, arguing that Cho should renominate one of the three candidates already recommended by the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee, according to political sources on the 31st.
The party is emphasizing the existing pool because reconstituting the recommendation committee for a fresh nomination could drag out the process. Kim Seung-won, the Democratic Party's chief negotiator on the judiciary committee and the nominee for justice minister, said screening some 30 candidates again from the start and seeking their consent would be an abuse of nomination authority, and urged Cho to proceed with follow-up steps using the candidates already recommended.
Cho on the 18th nominated Son Bong-gi, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court, to succeed former Justice Roh Tae-ak, and senior judge Kim Seong-su to succeed Justice Lee Heung-gu. The presidential office declined to submit the confirmation motion for Son to the National Assembly and instead asked Cho to renominate. The Democratic Party has also questioned the process, noting that Cho submitted the nominations in writing without prior consultation with the presidential office.
The party also criticized Cho's refusal to appear before parliament. Cho had submitted a written opinion saying he would not attend an emergency question-and-answer session at the judiciary committee scheduled for the 31st, citing the separation of powers.
Seo Young-kyo, chair of the judiciary committee, said Cho "is not an emperor" and accused him of "misleading the public through an artful distortion of the facts" after the National Assembly requested his attendance. Kim Seung-won said the committee had voted to summon him as a witness under Article 129 of the National Assembly Act, and argued that Cho had "artfully distorted the law" in the provision he cited as grounds for not attending.
The People Power Party countered that the presidential office's renomination request is itself unconstitutional. Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun said that under Article 62, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the chief justice has no obligation to appear before the National Assembly, and that Article 129 of the National Assembly Act must be interpreted within the broader framework of that constitutional provision.
The party has signaled it is prepared to take legal action. Park Hyung-soo, the party's chief negotiator on the judiciary committee, said withholding the confirmation motion "may in itself infringe on the National Assembly's authority" and that the legislature "could file for a ruling on a jurisdictional dispute."
Rep. Na Kyung-won characterized the renomination request as an abuse of presidential power. Na said the president had "exercised a renomination authority that does not exist in law," calling it "a clear abuse of authority and grounds for presidential impeachment." Jang Dong-hyuk, the People Power Party leader, had earlier called the request "an anti-constitutional act that violates the separation of powers" and "an act of destroying democracy and the Constitution."
Cho is expected to announce his official position this week after reviewing whether to renominate and whether to reconstitute the recommendation committee.
