Party leader Kim Min-seok calls on Jo Hee-dae to step down voluntarily
Senior member Lee Sung-yoon says only resignation or impeachment remains
Ruling and opposition parties clash at National Assembly audit
The Democratic Party of Korea has mounted a sustained offensive against Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae following his pointed remarks at a National Assembly audit over his refusal to re-nominate a Supreme Court justice candidate at Cheong Wa Dae's request. With some within the party now openly raising the prospect of impeachment, the leadership is expected to reach a final decision soon.
Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok sharply criticized Jo at a supreme council meeting at the National Assembly on Wednesday, saying the chief justice had "refused to take the witness oath at the national audit, refused to testify, and is now invoking unconstitutionality while infringing on the people's constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial." Kim added that he believed Jo's "last duty as chief justice — a position that should stand as a symbol of integrity — is to step down of his own accord."
Kim also appeared on the party's YouTube channel, "Democratic Party TV," earlier Wednesday, sharpening his criticism by saying that if Jo "cannot resolve issues such as the re-nomination, it would be better for him to resign."
Jo had appeared before the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee for a national audit on Tuesday, where he delivered pointed remarks on the re-nomination dispute. Citing Article 104 of the Constitution, he said the National Assembly and the president "have absolutely no role in the chief justice's nomination, just as the chief justice has absolutely no role in the Assembly's confirmation process or the president's appointment process." He added that the chief justice's authority and obligation end with the nomination itself.
At Wednesday's supreme council meeting, the Democratic Party leadership directed a unified barrage of criticism at Jo. Floor Leader Han Byung-do noted that the very constitutional provision Jo had cited — Article 104, Paragraph 2 — also enshrines the National Assembly's right to confirm and the president's right to appoint, not just the chief justice's right to nominate. Han urged Jo to "immediately engage in substantive consultations" in response to the Assembly's demand for an explanation of how he exercised his authority.
Supreme council member Lee Sung-yoon raised his voice, saying, "If Yoon Suk Yeol represents politically driven prosecution, then Jo Hee-dae represents the same in the courts." Lee argued that the Constitution guarantees the independence of trials, not the independence of judicial administration such as the nomination of justices, and declared that "the only paths left for Chief Justice Jo, who disregards the people and the Constitution, are resignation and impeachment."
Rep. Kim Eui-kyum, who leads the Democratic Party's side on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, told KBS Radio on Wednesday that there were "theoretically several options" for how the party might respond — including a parliamentary investigation, abolishing the Court Administration Office, or impeachment — but said the party was "waiting for the leadership to deliberate and decide."
Cheong Wa Dae has maintained its existing position on the re-nomination dispute, saying it hopes the chief justice will "proceed with the re-nomination process as swiftly as possible."
Presidential Chief Spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said Tuesday that Cheong Wa Dae hoped Jo would "respect the recommendations of the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee and proceed with the re-nomination process as swiftly as possible, so that the people's right to a fair trial is not infringed upon by a prolonged vacancy on the Supreme Court." On Jo's pointed remarks at the audit, Kang said the presidential office had "no separate position to offer," adding that a detailed statement had already been issued and could be referenced.
Earlier, after Jo refused Cheong Wa Dae's request to re-nominate a justice candidate, the presidential office said his stance amounted to placing the chief justice's nomination authority above the president's appointment authority, which it called "a view that runs counter to the Constitution." It urged Jo to "squarely face the fact that a prolonged vacancy on the Supreme Court translates into harm for the public, and to stop allowing the current situation to persist."
Meanwhile, the ruling and opposition parties clashed at the Supreme Court national audit on Tuesday over Jo's decision to leave the chamber and his refusal to re-nominate a justice candidate, with lawmakers exchanging heated words and insults.
Jo, who had been called as a general witness at the initiative of the ruling People Power Party, remained in the chamber only during the morning session without taking the witness oath, then returned shortly before the audit concluded at around 10:51 p.m. to deliver closing remarks.
In response to last-minute questions from ruling party lawmakers, Jo said he would "defer to what he had said earlier in the morning" and offered no additional answers. Legislation and Judiciary Committee Chair Seo Yeong-gyo of the Democratic Party noted that Jo had "not answered anything in the morning and had only given partial responses." People Power Party lawmakers had left the chamber before Jo delivered his closing remarks.
bigroot@heraldcorp.com
thanks@heraldcorp.com
sunpine@heraldcorp.com
