Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de held to his position on the president's demand that he renominate different candidates for the Supreme Court, warning that complying would undermine the separation of powers and judicial independence. He argued that the chief justice's power to nominate, the National Assembly's power to consent and the president's power to appoint must each be respected as the Constitution intended. He also declined a request to appear as a general witness at the parliamentary audit, a request adopted at the initiative of the Democratic Party of Korea, and did not take the witness oath.
Appearing before the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee for its parliamentary audit on the 6th, Jo said, "Our Constitution provides that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president, on the nomination of the chief justice and with the consent of the National Assembly." He added, "By granting separate powers to the chief justice, the National Assembly and the president, it ensured that authority over the composition of the Supreme Court is exercised in harmony and independently."
"In light of this constitutional intent, requiring the chief justice to testify about the nomination of Supreme Court justices risks undermining the principles of the separation of powers and judicial independence," he said, indicating he could not comply with the committee's request for such testimony. Jo added that he had explained the same position when the committee requested his appearance as a witness on the 8th of last month.
He did, however, describe the circumstances surrounding the renomination demand himself. "We reviewed the qualifications and abilities of the candidates recommended by the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee and continued consultations on the follow-up procedures, but I submitted the nominations for appointment without having reached a final agreement," Jo said.
"I subsequently received a letter from the presidential office asking me to nominate different candidates in place of the existing ones, but the letter did not clearly set out the specific grounds or the constitutional basis for not proceeding with the appointment of the candidates I had already nominated," he said. "It was difficult to understand its purpose from the contents of the letter alone."
Jo said he had concluded that it would be difficult to proceed with the follow-up steps. "This follows the principle that the chief justice's power to nominate, the National Assembly's power to consent and the president's power to appoint must each be respected in accordance with their constitutional meaning," he said.
He expressed regret over the prolonged vacancies on the bench. "I feel apologetic that the vacancies among Supreme Court justices have dragged on and caused concern for the public," Jo said. "I am keenly aware of the responsibility to ensure the Supreme Court has a full complement of justices and to reduce the inconvenience to the public."
"I will make every necessary effort so that the composition of the Supreme Court can be made whole as soon as possible, in accordance with the principles set out in the Constitution and the law," he said. The remarks signaled that while he maintains his position of not complying with the renomination demand, he shares the view that the extended vacancies need to be resolved.
Jo explained that his appearance at the audit followed the practice under which chief justices deliver opening and closing remarks at the start and end of the parliamentary audit. Unlike last year's audit, he will not leave the hearing early, he said, but added that detailed questions about the nomination of Supreme Court justices would be answered by the head of the National Court Administration or by himself at the end of the session.
