![President Lee Jae Myung shakes hands with Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae at the 107th March 1 Independence Movement Day ceremony held at COEX in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on March 1. [Yonhap]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/08/24/rcv.YNA.20260301.PYH2026030102740001300_P1.jpg)
A dispute between Cheong Wa Dae and the Supreme Court over Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae's written nomination of two Supreme Court justice candidates is increasingly likely to escalate into an unprecedented rejection of a nominee — a first in the country's constitutional history. Cheong Wa Dae is considering withholding the nomination consent motion for Son Bong-gi, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court, from the National Assembly and in effect demanding that Chief Justice Jo submit a new nominee. Legal circles warn that if the president effectively returns the chief justice's nomination, the move could trigger a constitutional controversy over the appointment process for Supreme Court justices.
According to political and legal sources Monday, Cheong Wa Dae is reviewing a plan to halt the appointment process for Judge Son, whom Chief Justice Jo nominated as the successor to former Justice Noh Tae-ak. Under the plan being discussed, the consent motion for Kim Seong-su, a senior judge at the Seoul High Court nominated to succeed Justice Lee Heung-gu, would proceed through the National Assembly, while the motion for Judge Son would not be forwarded. Chief Justice Jo on Tuesday submitted written nominations to President Lee Jae Myung — recommending Judge Son to fill the vacancy left by Justice Noh, who retired in March, and Judge Kim to succeed Justice Lee, who retires Sept. 7. The nominations broke with the longstanding practice of the chief justice meeting the president in person, and the written format set off the current controversy.
Cheong Wa Dae and the Supreme Court have since traded conflicting accounts over whether the candidates were discussed in advance and whether the written format had been agreed upon. Court Administration Minister Noh Gyeong-pil told the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Thursday that the written submission was "a method agreed upon with the senior presidential secretary for civil affairs." Cheong Wa Dae communications chief Seong Gi-hong rebuffed that account the following day, Friday, appearing on the YouTube channel OhmyTV and saying that while "general matters related to the nomination of Supreme Court justices were discussed, there was absolutely no consultation on the specific method of nomination, including whether it would be done in writing." The two sides have offered directly contradictory accounts of whether the written format was coordinated in advance.
If Cheong Wa Dae does not forward Judge Son's consent motion to the National Assembly, the Supreme Court could find itself compelled to nominate a new candidate from scratch. The court has so far maintained that "nothing has been decided" regarding a potential re-nomination, but it cannot avoid preparing for contingencies if the current nomination is effectively rejected. Under the Court Organization Act, the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee is convened each time the chief justice nominates a candidate. If Judge Son's nomination is effectively nullified, the entire selection process — including soliciting candidates, forming the committee and conducting reviews — would have to restart from the outset.
There are past cases in which a Supreme Court justice nominee was not appointed after being put forward, but those situations differ in nature from the current standoff. In 2012, during the Lee Myung-bak administration, nominee Kim Byeong-hwa withdrew voluntarily after a series of allegations surfaced during his National Assembly confirmation hearing. The Supreme Court subsequently reconstituted the recommendation committee and selected a replacement. There is no precedent for a president refusing to accept a chief justice's nomination and demanding that a new candidate be put forward.
Earlier, Court Administration Minister Noh told the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Thursday that he had called candidates recommended as potential successors to former Justice Noh and asked their views on restarting the recommendation process, with some agreeing and others objecting. "Among the various options, there was an idea of putting the four previously recommended individuals through a fresh nomination process," Noh said. "For that idea to work, all four of them would have to agree."
If Judge Son's nomination falls through, a prolonged vacancy on the Supreme Court bench would be unavoidable. One seat has already been empty for about five months since former Justice Noh retired in March, and when Justice Lee steps down Sept. 7, the number of vacancies will rise to two. Should the nomination process for Judge Son's seat return to square one, the vacancy left by former Justice Noh is expected to remain unfilled for a considerable time.
Within legal circles, including inside the courts, concerns are mounting that Cheong Wa Dae's refusal to forward Judge Son's consent motion to the National Assembly — while demanding a new nomination from the chief justice — could infringe on the constitutional principle of separation of powers and on the chief justice's right of nomination. Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that Supreme Court justices "shall be appointed by the president upon the recommendation of the chief justice with the consent of the National Assembly." The Court Organization Act contains an identical provision. The constitutional framework assigns the chief justice the power to nominate, the National Assembly the power to consent, and the president the final authority to appoint. The Constitution does not separately provide the president with the authority to return a nominee put forward by the chief justice or to demand that a different candidate be nominated.
There are also concerns that if the president effectively rejects a nominee before the National Assembly consent process has even begun, the move would infringe not only on the chief justice's nomination authority but also on the Assembly's right to pass judgment on the candidate. A lawyer who formerly served at the Court Administration Office said, "Has not the chief justice already exercised his authority to nominate? For the president to then refuse to even request a confirmation hearing from the National Assembly carries a risk of being unconstitutional — it would infringe on the National Assembly's authority." A sitting senior judge said, "Right now, political interpretations of the written nomination are diverging, but if Cheong Wa Dae goes on to reject the nomination outright, there is ample room for debate over whether that would be unconstitutional."
Against this backdrop, one option being discussed is for Cheong Wa Dae to forward Judge Son's consent motion to the National Assembly after all, leaving the final decision to the legislature. Once the president submits a consent motion, the candidate undergoes a confirmation hearing before a floor vote is held. The motion passes if a majority of sitting Assembly members are present and a majority of those present vote in favor. If the Democratic Party, which holds 161 seats as the dominant ruling party, votes against the nominee, passage of the consent motion on the floor would in effect become impossible. That path would allow the president to avoid the appearance of directly rejecting the chief justice's nomination, but it would likely deepen the confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties.
yg@heraldcorp.com
