The Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. [Herald DB]
The Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. [Herald DB]

The Constitutional Court has dismissed a competence dispute filed by the People Power Party, which argued it was unconstitutional for the Democratic Party of Korea to unilaterally push through a parliamentary investigation plan into allegations of fabricated indictments by prosecutors under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration.

The court ruled unanimously on July 2, with all nine justices, to dismiss the case brought by PPP legal advisory committee chairman Kwak Gyu-taek and six other lawmakers. In the competence dispute between Assembly members and the Assembly speaker, the court held that, unlike ordinary special committees established by a plenary vote under the National Assembly Act, the establishment and composition of a parliamentary investigation special committee does not require a separate plenary vote under the Act on the Inspection and Investigation of State Administration.

The court said that while Kwak and the other petitioners argued the parliamentary investigation was unlawful because it was intended to interfere with ongoing investigations or trials, that argument amounted to a challenge to the substance of the approved agenda — and could not in itself be construed as a claim that the PPP lawmakers' own constitutional powers had been infringed.

The court added that a lawmaker's right to deliberate and vote "is a power that guarantees the opportunity to participate in the process of forming the Assembly's will." It ruled that "the mere fact that there may be a problem with the content of an agenda item does not in itself establish a possible infringement of the right to deliberate and vote, so long as the item was placed before the plenary session, debate and a vote were held, and the opportunity to participate was provided."

The court also rejected the PPP's argument that the absence of a separate plenary vote to establish the parliamentary investigation special committee violated the National Assembly Act.

The court said a parliamentary investigation special committee "is composed by the Assembly speaker in consultation with the floor leaders of each negotiating group under the Act on the Inspection and Investigation of State Administration, and unlike a special committee under the National Assembly Act that is formed by plenary vote, its establishment and composition do not require a plenary vote." It further noted that because the parliamentary investigation plan included matters directly related to the committee's composition, the number of members and its period of activity — all of which went through plenary deliberation and a vote — "it is also difficult to conclude that the petitioners were given no opportunity whatsoever to deliberate and vote on these matters."

The court also said that while the petitioners claimed the vote was taken without sufficient dialogue and debate, they had not specified what procedural defect had actually occurred. "On the contrary, the filibuster was conducted normally, and the PPP lawmakers left the chamber of their own accord and did not participate in the vote," the court said, adding that "it is difficult to find a rights infringement on the sole ground that an opportunity to exercise the right to deliberate and vote was provided but not taken."

Earlier, 141 Democratic Party lawmakers submitted a request for the parliamentary investigation to the National Assembly on March 11. Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik then consulted with the floor leaders of each negotiating group and appointed members to form the parliamentary investigation special committee.

The special committee adopted the parliamentary investigation plan on March 20, and the motion to approve the plan was placed before the plenary session on March 21. PPP lawmakers then demanded a filibuster. After a motion to end the filibuster passed, the Democratic Party held a vote on the approval motion and declared it passed. PPP lawmakers did not participate in the vote.

Kwak and the other petitioners filed the competence dispute on March 25, arguing that the investigation was unlawful because it was aimed at interfering with ongoing investigations and trials, that the special committee had been formed without a separate plenary vote, and that the Democratic Party's declaration of passage had infringed their right to deliberate and vote because sufficient dialogue and debate had not been guaranteed regarding the plan.


bell@heraldcorp.com