Jo delivers opening remarks at National Assembly audit of Supreme Court
Democratic lawmaker blocks his departure, demands witness oath
Ruling and opposition parties clash over chief justice's witness status
Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae said Tuesday that requiring him to testify before the National Assembly about his nominations of Supreme Court justices would undermine the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. The first day of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee's national audit was marked by a fierce clash between the ruling and opposition parties over whether Jo should be allowed to leave the hearing room — a repeat of a similar confrontation last year.
Speaking in opening remarks at the national audit of the Supreme Court held at the National Assembly on Tuesday morning, Jo said the Constitution stipulates that Supreme Court justices are nominated by the chief justice, confirmed by the National Assembly and appointed by the president. "By granting each of these three parties their respective authority, the Constitution ensures that the power to constitute the Supreme Court is exercised in a harmonious and independent manner," he said.
After delivering his opening remarks, Jo attempted to leave the hearing room as is customary, but Seo Yeong-gyo, the Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker chairing the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, refused to allow him to do so. Seo repeatedly demanded that Jo take a witness oath, which Jo refused.
Jo had been designated as a general witness for this year's national audit at the Democratic Party's initiative, but submitted a written notice of non-attendance to the National Assembly on Friday. His stated reason was that compelling the chief justice to testify before the legislature about his constitutionally independent power to nominate Supreme Court justices would violate the separation of powers and judicial independence.
In the notice, Jo also said the demand was inconsistent with the intent of the National Assembly Act, which does not impose on the chief justice an obligation to appear before or answer questions from the legislature. Article 121 of the act governs attendance requirements for the prime minister, Cabinet members and government officials — but does not specify whether the chief justice falls within the scope of those required to appear and respond.
In his opening remarks, Jo expressed regret over the prolonged vacancy on the Supreme Court bench. "I am deeply aware of my responsibility to ensure the Supreme Court is fully constituted so as to reduce inconvenience to the public," he said.
He then said he had carefully reviewed the qualifications and capabilities of the justice candidates recommended by the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee and had held ongoing consultations with Cheong Wa Dae on follow-up procedures, but ultimately submitted his nominations without reaching a final agreement. He added that he subsequently received an official letter from Cheong Wa Dae asking him to submit new nominations.
"However, that letter did not clearly set out the specific reasons or constitutional basis for not proceeding with the appointment of the already-nominated candidates and for requesting new nominations, and it was difficult to discern the intent from the letter alone," Jo said. "I determined that there were difficulties in proceeding with the follow-up procedures under these circumstances."
Jo doubled down, saying his position was guided by the principle that the chief justice's power to nominate, the National Assembly's power to confirm and the president's power to appoint must each be respected in accordance with their constitutional meaning.
yg@heraldcorp.com
