Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de said on the 6th that neither the National Assembly nor the president can intervene in the chief justice's nomination of Supreme Court justices.
Jo made the remark during a parliamentary audit of the Supreme Court by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, after Rep. Kim Ki-pyo of the Democratic Party of Korea asked why he was refusing to take an oath and testify despite having been designated a witness. "Since everyone is curious, I will reluctantly explain in detail the reasons for refusing to take the oath and testify," Jo said.
Although Jo declined to be sworn in or testify, he actively responded to various allegations raised by lawmakers from the Democratic Party of Korea and the Progressive Party. That marked a shift from last year's audit, when he delivered opening remarks and remained seated for a time but did not answer lawmakers' questions.
On the nomination power, Jo said: "Just as the chief justice cannot be involved at all in the National Assembly's consent process or the president's appointment process, neither the National Assembly nor the president can be involved in the chief justice's nomination." He added that "for the National Assembly to interfere with the chief justice's nomination is an unconstitutional measure that runs counter to the division of powers among institutions expressly set out in the Constitution and to judicial independence."
He also argued that the practice of consulting the president in advance on justice nominations is not a constitutional obligation. "It has no basis in the Constitution. The chief justice has cooperated voluntarily to ensure swift and smooth appointments," Jo said. "Even if the chief justice does not consult, there is no constitutional problem whatsoever, and successive presidents have in the end all respected the chief justice's nomination power." He added that "written nominations are likewise not restricted by the Constitution."
"Once the chief justice makes a nomination, he has fully discharged both his constitutional authority and his duty," he said. "The procedure of submitting a request for consent to the appointment to the National Assembly cannot be regarded as the chief justice's responsibility." He continued: "Because the National Assembly cannot press me on matters that are nowhere in the Constitution, I am stating specifically that I have no choice but to refuse to take the oath or testify."
Jo also flatly denied allegations that the judiciary sought to cooperate with the emergency martial law declared on Dec. 3. It was the first time Jo had appeared before the National Assembly and directly addressed the judiciary's response at the time of the martial law declaration.
"The Supreme Court said the emergency martial law was unconstitutional before anyone else, before any other institution," Jo said. "The martial law command asked us to dispatch personnel and at least send a list of names, but I instructed that this was an unconstitutional act, that no one should be sent and no list should be provided." He stressed that the judiciary "never cooperated with the emergency martial law."
Responding to criticism that the judiciary's response to the riot at the Seoul Western District Court was inadequate, Jo said: "The head of the National Court Administration issued a strong statement at the scene at the time, and immediately after the situation was brought under control, he visited the Western District Court, listened to the difficulties of those involved and took the necessary steps."
He added: "We issued the strongest possible statement in the name of the Supreme Court Justices' Council, the judiciary's highest decision-making body, and more recently we even filed damages suits against those who caused the disturbance."
He also pushed back against criticism that public trust in the courts has declined. "At a recent conference of Asia-Pacific chief justices, one chief justice cited data from an international organization showing that South Korea's judicial trust ratings have improved in recent years," Jo said.
On criticism that he used his personal expense account to buy expensive liquor at staff dinners, Jo said: "A staff member at the court administration office holds the card and sets the date for the dinner, and I simply attend and encourage the employees. I have no knowledge at all of budget allocation or spending, or how much a given meal cost."
"Lately, staff do not prefer frequent gatherings because of child care and other reasons, and when they do meet occasionally, what they want is to eat something they have not had before," he said. "It appears that in some of those cases the amounts exceeded the standard, and I believe the court administration office will correct this so that it does not happen again." He then apologized, saying, "I offer my apologies to the public."
When Rep. Son Sol of the Progressive Party asked whether he was "dreaming of becoming a second Yoon Suk-yeol," Jo replied that "such a remark is insulting and somewhat saddening."
