Noh Kyung-pil, head of the National Court Administration, said on the 6th that Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de's position on renominating Supreme Court justices is that "a decision can be made only after a clear intention arrives from the presidential office."
Noh made the remark during a parliamentary audit of the Supreme Court by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, after Rep. Kim Han-kyu of the Democratic Party of Korea asked how the vacancies on the Supreme Court bench would be resolved. "I feel sorry about it," Noh said.
When Rep. Kim Eui-kyeom of the Democratic Party asked whether the chief justice wanted the presidential office to resend its request with specific grounds spelled out, Noh replied, "It means that, as things stand, we cannot know exactly what the presidential office intends."
Asked whether he had seen in advance the document the chief justice had prepared, Noh said, "To be honest, I did not know about it. That was a document I was seeing for the first time."
At the audit, Jo had been designated as an ordinary witness. When Rep. Kim Ki-pyo of the Democratic Party asked why he was refusing to take the oath and testify, Jo took out a prepared document and read from it, saying, "Since everyone is curious, I will have no choice but to explain in detail the reasons for refusing to take the oath and to testify."
"For the National Assembly to interfere with the chief justice's nominations is an unconstitutional measure that runs counter to the division of powers among institutions expressly set out in the Constitution and to the independence of the judiciary," Jo said. He added: "Just as the chief justice cannot be involved at all in the National Assembly's consent procedure or the president's appointment procedure, neither the National Assembly nor the president can be involved at all in the chief justice's nominations. It can be said that with the nomination, all of the chief justice's constitutional powers and duties are at an end."
Jo also said the consultation procedure between the Supreme Court and the presidential office over justice nominations has no basis in the Constitution, and that the chief justice had cooperated voluntarily to ensure appointments proceeded smoothly.
