The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee will hold an emergency session on the 28th to question the Supreme Court over how and why Chief Justice Jo Hee-de refused to renominate a candidate for the Supreme Court bench. The Democratic Party of Korea has raised a new allegation that Jo was briefed on an internal review by the National Court Administration concluding that a renomination was necessary, but overrode it and ordered the position rewritten as a refusal.
Kim Eui-kyeom, the Democratic Party's floor liaison on the committee, announced on the 27th that an emergency question-and-answer session with the National Court Administration would be held at 2 p.m. on the 28th at a full committee meeting. The People Power Party also plans to attend. Jo will not appear; Noh Kyung-pil, head of the National Court Administration, is scheduled to answer lawmakers' questions.
The Democrats are expected to focus on how Jo came to reject the presidential office's request for a renomination, and on what reviews and briefings took place inside the National Court Administration at the time.
Lee Yong-woo, a Democratic Party spokesperson, told a news conference at the National Assembly that day: "A claim has been raised that the National Court Administration initially concluded a renomination was necessary and reported that to Chief Justice Jo, but that Jo became enraged and ordered the opinion rewritten as a refusal, on the grounds that the existing nomination remained valid." He added, "If true, this was an arbitrary decision that disregarded the views of the National Court Administration and others."
Lee also said: "Afterward, the head of the National Court Administration confided that it was the first time he had seen Jo so angry, and the Supreme Court justices had been inclined to think the matter could simply be resolved by renominating, so they could not hide their bewilderment at the unexpected decision to refuse."
To verify the allegation, the Democrats have demanded that the National Court Administration submit two related documents: the review said to have been drafted initially to the effect that a renomination was necessary and reported to Jo, and the document said to have been redrafted afterward to the effect that the renomination would be refused.
Speaking to reporters, Lee said: "The first is the content of the initial report, that is, the document reporting that a renomination should be made, and the second is the document drafted after the instruction to rewrite it as a refusal of the nomination." He said, "It appears these two exist." He also urged the National Court Administration to submit the documents to the National Assembly immediately.
The Democrats argued that the matter could escalate into a legal issue if the claims are confirmed. "If that claim is true, then the contents of the official documents and the statements Jo has issued so far are all false," Lee said. "Unprecedented rage leaves room for the interpretation that he effectively made a coercive demand, and if so, it could amount to abuse of authority under the criminal code."
The key issues at the 28th session are expected to be whether the National Court Administration's initial review opinion in fact called for a renomination, how that opinion was reported to Jo, whether the opinion was changed after the briefing, and whether the related documents actually exist.
The Democrats, however, are taking a cautious stance on calls within the party to impeach Jo. Rather than playing the impeachment card now, the party appears to be placing priority on establishing the facts surrounding the refusal through the committee session and the parliamentary audit of government agencies. Kwon Chil-seung, chair of the Democratic Party's policy committee, said that day of the party's response to Jo: "You can take the response of the Democratic Party's judiciary committee members as the party's response."
