Refusing to testify, emphasizing that โthe right to recommend is the power of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Courtโโฆ 6 minutes of thought-provoking speech
Stayed at the National Assembly for 2 and a half hours... โThe National Assembly and the President cannot be involved in the proposal.โ
(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Bal-eum Lee Mi-ryeong = Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae appeared at the Supreme Court's government audit on the 6th and refused to testify on the issue of re-nomination of Supreme Court Justices, but made a poignant statement: "The National Assembly and the President cannot be involved in the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."
It is customary for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to leave the room after giving a greeting at the National Assembly audit, but Chief Justice Cho stayed at the National Assembly Audit Office for about 2 hours and 30 minutes this morning because he was previously selected as a general witness under the leadership of the Democratic Party of Korea and was asked to testify.
Chief Justice Cho said in his greeting that he would refuse to testify regarding the recommendation, citing the separation of powers, but in the process of explaining the reason for refusing to testify, he actually detailed his position on the constitutional interpretation of the right to recommend and the scope of involvement of the National Assembly and the President.
Chief Justice Cho took out a piece of paper he had prepared in response to Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Ki-pyo's request for testimony and spoke for about 6 minutes, saying, "Everyone is curious, so I will inevitably tell you." During this process, the word โunconstitutionalโ was mentioned four times.
The gist of the statement is that 'Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution only stipulates that the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court โ the consent of the National Assembly โ the appointment of the President, and there is no basis for limiting the Chief Justice's right to recommend or for the National Assembly and the President to be involved in the recommendation process.'
He said, "(According to the Constitution), each of the three branches has its own exclusive authority. Just as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court cannot be involved in the National Assembly's consent process or the President's appointment process, the National Assembly and the President cannot be involved in the Supreme Court's recommendation at all."
At the same time, he emphasized that the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's intervention in the Supreme Court Chief Justice's recommendation by using the form of 'state inspection testimony' without any constitutional basis is "an unconstitutional measure that goes against the distribution of authority among institutions and the independence of judicial power as established by the Constitution."
On the surface, the request for testimony from the National Assembly was taken issue with, but in reality, it was a direct attack on the fact that neither the National Assembly nor the President had any basis to interfere with the Supreme Court Chief Justice's exercise of the right to recommend.
Chief Justice Cho further stated that Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution does not mandate other necessary matters to be established by law like some other provisions, and said, "Anything that imposes procedures and methods that infringe upon this is unconstitutional."
Furthermore, he also mentioned that there was no constitutional or legal problem in breaking with the custom and submitting a written recommendation for candidate Son Bong-gi, with whom there was no agreement with the Blue House.
Regarding the recommendation of a candidate who could not reach an agreement with the Blue House, he said, "Although consultation with the President has no basis in the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has voluntarily cooperated for a quick and smooth appointment," and added, "There is no constitutional problem even if we do not do so."
Regarding the written submission method, he also said, โThere are no restrictions at all in the Constitution.โ Regarding the recommendations of the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee, we have respected the opinions of the Recommendation Committee, but we also emphasized that not following them does not make it unconstitutional or illegal.
At the same time, the request for appointment consent was also separate from the Supreme Court Chief Justice's exercise of recommendation rights, saying, "It is a law established by the National Assembly to facilitate the National Assembly's personnel hearing process after the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."
He emphasized that he has fulfilled all of the rights and obligations granted by the Constitution and that there is no constitutional basis for the National Assembly or the President to question the nomination process or force a specific procedure.
In his greeting, Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said, โWe received an official letter from the Blue House asking us to nominate another candidate, but the specific reasons and constitutional basis for requesting to nominate another candidate were not clearly stated,โ adding, โIt was difficult to understand the purpose just from the content of the official document.โ
Although it was said that there were difficulties in carrying out follow-up procedures due to these circumstances, no separate explanation was given on this day about the background of the delay in the proposal, including the process of reaching an agreement with the Blue House.
This is the first time that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has appeared before the National Audit Office and expressed his opinion on a pending issue, excluding greetings, since the National Assembly audit was resumed the following year following a constitutional amendment in 1987.
It was revealed that Chief Justice Cho did not previously consult with the Director of the National Court Administration or the Personnel Review Officer about the manuscript he read that day.
In response to an afternoon question from Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Eui-gyeom asking, "The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court took out an A4 piece of paper and explained it, did you see the contents in advance?" Director Noh Kyung-pil of the Court Administration said, "To be honest, I didn't know. It was my first time seeing that document."
