Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de appeared before the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 6th for a parliamentary audit of the Supreme Court and delivered pointed remarks at the government and ruling party, saying that interference by the president or the legislature in the chief justice's power to nominate Supreme Court justices is unconstitutional. Jo refused to take an oath or testify as an ordinary witness, a status pushed by the Democratic Party of Korea, but answered lawmakers' questions directly in his capacity as chief justice — the first time a sitting chief justice has done so in the country's constitutional history — and pushed back actively.
The Democratic Party and other parties in the ruling bloc escalated their offensive, pressing Jo over whether he should stay in office and signaling they would file criminal complaints over his refusal to take the witness oath. With a sitting chief justice answering lawmakers' questions in person and stating his position, the conflict between branches of government over renomination is expected to intensify further.
Appearing at the audit as the head of an institution, Jo used his opening remarks to refuse to take an oath or testify as an ordinary witness, citing Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. His reasoning was that having the chief justice sworn in as an ordinary witness subject to parliamentary oversight could undermine the separation of powers. He did, however, bow his head, saying, "I feel sorry that the prolonged vacancies on the Supreme Court bench have caused concern among the public."
While expressing regret over the gap in justice appointments, Jo reaffirmed his existing position that he had no choice but to reject the presidential office's demand for a new nomination in order to protect judicial independence. Reading from a document he had prepared in advance, he said, "There is no basis anywhere in the Constitution for the president or the National Assembly to intervene in the chief justice's nomination." He added firmly, "Consultation with the president is not an obligation, and there is no constitutional problem whatsoever if the chief justice does not consult." He went on: "Consultations in the past were voluntary cooperation by the judiciary to facilitate smooth appointments, and successive presidents ultimately respected this nomination power. By making the nomination, the chief justice has already fulfilled all of his constitutional powers and duties."
The Democratic Party and the rest of the ruling bloc kept up the pressure. Rep. Park Kyoun-taek of the Democratic Party said, "Refusing to renominate denies the president's appointment power as set out in the Constitution," and criticized it as "a specific violation of a constitutional provision, which is more than enough to constitute grounds for impeachment."
The People Power Party said the precedent of allowing the chief justice to leave the chamber should be respected, stressing the importance of judicial independence. Rep. Park Hyung-soo, the opposition's committee liaison, said, "Is that the kind of country you want, one where judicial independence is trampled?" He added, "President Lee Jae-myung, who demanded a new nomination with no basis in the Constitution, should be the one appearing as a witness."
Lawmakers in the ruling bloc raised the pressure by alleging that Jo had paid cash bonuses to Supreme Court justices and improperly used his official expense account. They also brought up allegations that he had been involved in the Dec. 3 emergency martial law declaration. Jo rejected the martial law allegations, saying, "I did not cooperate in any way."
As tensions mounted, the audit descended into an exchange of insults. Rep. Son Sol of the Progressive Party pressed Jo, saying he was "setting himself against the president under the banner of judicial independence in order to build up his own political weight," and asked whether he was "dreaming of becoming a second Yoon Suk-yeol." Jo pushed back strongly, calling the remark "deeply insulting and a sad thing." People Power Party lawmakers also protested, and in the course of the exchange Rep. Kim Tae-gyu said to Rep. Kim Yong-min of the Democratic Party, "Did you get scratched on Owl Rock?" The phrase evoked the death of late former President Roh Moo-hyun, and the ruling bloc fired back at Kim, telling him to "be a human being," as the emotional confrontation reached its peak. Committee Chair Seo Young-kyo cut off Kim's speaking rights, and after the session was recessed Kim went to Seo and protested loudly, keeping the disruption going.
The bitter standoff between the two sides continued into the afternoon, leading to an unprecedented situation in which two opposition lawmakers were stripped of their speaking rights in a single audit. When Rep. Park Hyung-soo, the opposition's committee liaison, objected to the way the session was being run, including the order in which witnesses were allowed to speak, Seo lashed out, saying, "Look at that expression and the way he's shaking his neck. He's just like a gangster." Park shot back, "So you're a female thug," in a head-on clash, and Seo ultimately forced a halt to Park's speaking rights as well, citing the need to maintain order.
Earlier, Jo had cited health problems and did not attend the session when it resumed in the afternoon, prompting Seo to notify him that this was "a clear insult to the National Assembly" and that she would file a complaint. Jo nevertheless reappeared in the committee room just before the audit ended.
In his closing remarks, he bowed his head again, saying, "I take to heart the comments from members who expressed concern about the vacancies on the Supreme Court bench, and I am again sorry to the public." He added, "I will make every necessary effort so that the Supreme Court can have a full bench." He also acknowledged shortcomings in how his official expense account had been spent and promised improvements. He drew a line, however, at further questions from the ruling bloc about internal Supreme Court meetings held at the time of the martial law declaration, saying, "I came to deliver closing remarks, and it is difficult for me to take any more questions." He ended the audit holding to his position that interference in the nomination power is unconstitutional.
