South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party (DP) is pushing forward with a controversial package of judicial reforms that are drawing sharp criticism from within the legal establishment and raising concerns about the independence of the judiciary. The proposed changes, expected to be put to a plenary vote later this month, center around expanding the Supreme Court bench and allowing constitutional appeals of finalized rulings – a move that could fundamentally alter the concept of legal finality in the country.
At the heart of the proposed reforms is a plan to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 14 to 26. This expansion, coupled with the introduction of constitutional appeals, has sparked a backlash led by Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, who warned on that the bills could cause great harm
to the public. He emphasized the need for sufficient deliberation through public debate
and indicated the Supreme Court would continue to consult and persuade
the National Assembly.
The DP, which holds a parliamentary majority, is determined to pass the legislation. The reforms are seen by some as a response to the legal challenges facing President Lee Jae Myung, whose five criminal trials are currently suspended due to his presidential election last year. Opposition lawmakers, however, allege the reforms are specifically designed to clear the President of these charges. Song Eon-seog, floor leader of the main opposition People Power Party (PPP), accused the DP of aiming to completely eliminate Lee’s five trials to ensure his safety even after his term.
PPP chief spokesperson Choi Bo-yoon further suggested that President Lee could potentially appoint 22 justices during his term if the bills are enacted, raising questions about the true intent of the reforms.
The proposed changes are often referred to as the ‘Judicial Reform 3 Laws’ – encompassing revisions to the Criminal Act (regarding obstruction of justice), the Constitutional Court Act (introducing the possibility of appeals to the Constitutional Court), and the Court Organization Act (expanding the Supreme Court).
The introduction of constitutional appeals for finalized Supreme Court rulings represents a significant departure from the current system. Currently, once the Supreme Court issues a final judgment, that decision is generally considered conclusive. Allowing further appeals to the Constitutional Court would effectively reopen cases, potentially undermining the principle of legal certainty and increasing the burden on the judicial system. Critics argue this could lead to endless litigation and erode public trust in the courts.
The expansion of the Supreme Court bench is also contentious. While proponents argue This proves necessary to address the increasing caseload and ensure more thorough consideration of complex legal issues, opponents fear it could be used to pack the court with judges aligned with the ruling party’s ideology. This raises concerns about the potential for political interference in judicial decision-making and the erosion of the judiciary’s independence.
Former Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moon Hyung-bae, has also voiced criticism of the proposed judicial reforms, adding to the growing chorus of concern within the legal community. A Korean professor has also warned that the reforms may weaken checks and balances within the government.
The debate over these reforms comes at a sensitive time for South Korea, as the country grapples with issues of political polarization and public trust in institutions. The DP argues that the reforms are necessary to address perceived injustices and improve the fairness of the legal system. However, the opposition and many legal experts contend that the changes are politically motivated and could have far-reaching negative consequences for the rule of law.
The potential impact on South Korea’s legal finality is a key concern. Currently, the finality of Supreme Court decisions provides a degree of certainty for businesses and individuals alike. The ability to reopen cases through constitutional appeals could create uncertainty and discourage investment, as companies may be hesitant to rely on legal rulings that could be challenged later. This could also lead to increased legal costs and delays, further burdening the judicial system.
The outcome of the vote on these bills will be closely watched by investors and international observers. A weakening of the judiciary’s independence and a disruption of legal finality could damage South Korea’s reputation as a stable and predictable investment destination. The situation highlights the ongoing tensions between the ruling party’s desire for judicial reform and the need to safeguard the principles of an independent and impartial judiciary.
