Opinion on authority dispute ‘Request for re-appointment by Supreme Court Justice’… “The claim must be cited”
“There is a possibility of a recurrence of conflict ahead of the increase in the number of Supreme Court justices… a judgment must be made.”
(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Mi-ryeong = In the competence dispute trial case in which the People's Power Party opposed the Blue House's request to re-nominate Supreme Court Justice candidates, it insisted that the request be cited, saying, "The National Assembly is the stage for verification of Supreme Court Justice candidates as scheduled by the Constitution."
According to the legal community on the 12th, the People Power Party refuted President Lee Jae-myung's claim that 'the right of appointment includes the power of judgment to select and select suitable people among the proposed candidates' in the summary of arguments for the authority dispute case submitted to the Constitutional Court the previous day.
The People Power Party also presupposes that they are not claiming that ‘the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is binding until the President’s final appointment decision after receiving the consent of the National Assembly.’
He emphasized, "The issue is whether the President can block the exercise of the National Assembly's right to consent by not opening the National Assembly's consent process without providing reasons for qualifications or qualifications for the proposed Supreme Court Justice candidate."
Even if, as President Lee's side claims, the President has the power to refuse the appointment of a candidate recommended to him, the purpose is that he can only exercise that power when objective reasons for disqualification are revealed.
The People Power Party said, "At the stage before the National Assembly's approval, the President may request re-recommendation without submitting a motion for appointment only if 'the proposed candidate does not meet the legal qualifications or if there is a defect in the recommendation process that violates the Constitution or the law.' This is because the qualifications and qualifications of the candidate are subject to review that the Constitution entrusts to the National Assembly consent procedure."
In addition, even after the consent of the National Assembly, “If objective disqualifications for performing the duties of a Supreme Court justice are revealed during the personnel hearing and voting process of the National Assembly, the President may refuse the appointment by stating the reasons.”
The People Power Party also heard the decision of the Constitutional Court that deemed Acting President Choi Sang-mok's non-appointment of Constitutional Court Justice candidate Ma Eun-hyuk as an act of infringement on the authority of the National Assembly.
The People Power Party said, "In this decision, the Constitutional Court ruled that 'the President's failure to appoint a person elected by the petitioner without justifiable grounds on the grounds that he has the right to appoint judges... cannot be permitted as it degrades the right to form the Constitutional Court (only in name and does not play a role).'" and "The refusal to give consent (to the National Assembly on Supreme Court nominees) eliminates the National Assembly's ability to exercise its right to consent."
He went on to say, “If the President may not appoint a recommended candidate at any time without the need to disclose a reason, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can only recommend a candidate after confirming in advance which candidate the President will accept.” He also said, “The Chief Justice’s right to recommend becomes a procedure to confirm the President’s intention, and the National Assembly’s right to consent becomes a procedure to ratify the President’s prior selection.”
He also emphasized that if the President has the authority to select and select Supreme Court Justice candidates, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would have to nominate multiple people for a single vacancy, but this has no constitutional basis.
In response to the President's argument that going through the National Assembly's consent process for a candidate who will not be appointed anyway is 'involving the National Assembly in a useless process', he refuted the claim, saying, "It is nothing more than a circular argument that presupposes the conclusion that 'the President has the authority to decide in advance to refuse appointment.'"
The People Power Party also requested that the Constitutional Court change its decision not to allow third-party litigation (exercising someone else's authority in one's name).
Citing this precedent, the President's side argued that 'People Power Party members' rather than the 'National Assembly' are not recognized as parties to the request for adjudication of authority disputes.
The People Power Party argued, "If the National Assembly's constitutional authority is violated when the National Assembly majority shares political interests with the President, and there is no way to dispute this, the National Assembly's authority will be subordinated to the political choices of the majority and will have no choice but to be left to the typical 'tyranny of the majority.'"
He continued, “Under the current Constitution in 1987, this is the first case where the President rejected the Supreme Court Chief Justice’s nomination to the Supreme Court and requested re-nomination, and the same problem is likely to repeat itself ahead of the increase in the number of Supreme Court justices,” and asked the Constitutional Court to make a constitutional judgment on the relationship between the right to appoint, the right to recommend, and the right to consent.
