Chief Justice Jo Hee-de on the 22nd refused President Lee Jae-myung's request to nominate a new Supreme Court justice candidate, setting up a direct confrontation with the presidential office. The office pushed back with two separate statements in a single day, an unusual step that laid bare its displeasure. The ruling Democratic Party accused the chief justice of "coup-like conduct" and called for his resignation, driving tensions between the government camp and the judiciary to their highest point yet.
Supreme Court: Renomination Request Has No Constitutional Basis
The Supreme Court said in a notice to the media on the 22nd that it "cannot comply with the renomination request." The statement came 25 days after President Lee returned Jo's nomination of Son Bong-gi, a senior judge, for a seat on the Supreme Court.
The court said that "acts of the president under national law shall be carried out through documents countersigned by the prime minister and the relevant members of the State Council," adding that "the only document related to this renomination request is the Aug. 28 'Request for Renomination of a Supreme Court Justice Candidate.'" It continued: "That document does not state the specific grounds for requesting a renomination or its constitutional basis, and no other specific constitutional basis or grounds justifying the renomination request can be found."
Political and legal circles had initially expected that, if Jo accepted the request, he would renominate one of the three candidates previously recommended. If he declined, the expectation was that he would reconstitute the Supreme Court justice recommendation committee and restart the recommendation process from the beginning. Instead, Jo defied both scenarios by taking issue with the document the presidential office had sent to the court and rejecting the renomination request outright.
Presidential Office Responds Twice, Says Appointment Power Is Being Nullified
The presidential office immediately objected, saying it "expresses deep regret." Shortly after Jo's position was released that morning, an official at the office said in a notice to the media that "the chief justice's statement amounts to claiming that his nomination power ranks above the president's appointment power," calling it "a view that violates the Constitution of the Republic of Korea." The official also criticized the stance, saying that "the idea that the president must appoint whomever the chief justice nominates as a Supreme Court justice nullifies the appointment power of a president elected by the people."
The office issued a second notice the same afternoon. It is unusual for the presidential office to state its position twice on a single matter. The second notice quoted Jo's statement in detail and rebutted it point by point.
On Jo's opening reference to the absence of a State Council member's countersignature, the presidential official said the statement "distorts the facts, as if the president's renomination request were defective for failing to observe the constitutional requirements of documentation and countersignature."
The official added that "the president simply refrained from using the words 'return' or 'rejection' in the official document out of respect for the chief justice as a constitutional institution, but clearly conveyed the intent to reject by stating, 'Regarding candidate Son Bong-gi, it has been decided not to submit a motion for consent to appointment to the National Assembly pursuant to Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution and Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Court Organization Act.'" The official said that "for the chief justice to fulfill his duty to constitute a constitutional institution, the Supreme Court, there is no option other than nominating a new candidate." The official then sharpened the criticism, saying, "It is hard to gauge the intent behind the chief justice alone saying, 'The content is not in the official document, so I do not know,' about reasons for the return that the entire public understands."
Inside the presidential office, some reacted to the timing of Jo's statement by calling it a break-in at an empty house. The chief justice did not raise the matter the previous day when he and President Lee had tea on the occasion of the ceremony conferring the letter of appointment on Supreme Court Justice Kim Sung-soo, they noted, and then issued his refusal while the president was away on an overseas trip.
"Judicial Abuse for Political Ends" vs. "A Natural Decision Under the Constitution"
The rival parties joined the fight, and the fallout began to spread quickly. Members of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee from the Democratic Party, the Rebuilding Korea Party and the Progressive Party said at a news conference at the National Assembly that day that the refusal was "a grave undermining of the separation of powers and an abuse of judicial power," denouncing Jo's rejection of the renomination request as "a political act." Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party, said, "Is it constitutional when he does it and unconstitutional when the president does it?"
The People Power Party, by contrast, told the Democratic Party to "stop destroying the Constitution" and defended the chief justice. Jang Dong-hyuk, the People Power Party leader and a former judge, held a news conference and said, "Chief Justice Jo's refusal of the renomination request is a natural decision under the Constitution," arguing that "the demand for a renomination of a Supreme Court justice is itself a violation of the Constitution." Han Dong-hoon, an independent lawmaker, said, "President Lee is insisting he can keep refusing until he gets someone he likes."
With the presidential office and the Supreme Court at odds, the vacancy on the Supreme Court is expected to drag on. Options cited for resolving it include the presidential office accepting the nomination of Son and submitting a motion for consent to the National Assembly, or Jo nominating a different candidate, but analysts say both are close to impossible under the current political alignment.
