Korea
Korean originalTranslated
Cho Hee-dae plans to explain justice renomination issue at parliamentary audit
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on his first commute to work after the Chuseok holiday that he would explain his position on the Supreme Court justice renomination issue at a National Assembly audit.
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on his first commute to work after the Chuseok holiday that he would explain the Supreme Court justice renomination issue at a National Assembly audit.
Asked by reporters whether he meant that future statements would also be conveyed through a spokesperson, Cho said the request had only called for renomination, so his reply had likewise given only a conclusion. He said he had heard that this had left reporters with many questions.
He added that he would address the matter at the forthcoming parliamentary audit. He also said he would convey any necessary information to reporters through a spokesperson.
On the 22nd, Cho said he could not accept the presidential office's request to renominate a successor to former Supreme Court Justice Noh Tae-ak.
He explained that, because the president's acts in matters of state are made in writing, he had based his judgment on the written renomination request sent by the presidential office on the 28th of the previous month. He said the document contained neither specific reasons for the request nor constitutional grounds.
Connected coverage
Related stories in one view
Continue in chronological order.
Politics ·
Chief Justice Cho refuses new Supreme Court nomination; presidential office expresses regret
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on the 22nd that he would not accept the presidential office’s request for a new Supreme Court justice nomination. He said the request lacked constitutional grounds, 25 days after receiving it on the 28th of the previous month, and the presidential office expressed regret in two statements.
Cho said in his statement that the president’s acts in matters of state must take the form of documents countersigned by the prime minister and the relevant cabinet members. He said the request document did not specify reasons or constitutional grounds, and that he could not comply because he could find no grounds or reasons to justify it.
On the 28th of the previous month, the presidential office requested a new nomination, alleging procedural problems with the recommendation to appoint Son Bong-gi, a presiding judge at the Daegu District Court, to succeed former Supreme Court Justice Roh Tae-ak. It objected that the nomination had been submitted only in writing, without consultation with President Lee Jae-myung or a presidential meeting, and sent the Supreme Court a request document in the president’s name.
About 30 minutes after the refusal was announced, the presidential office countered that an argument requiring the president to appoint the chief justice’s nominee as presented would undermine the president’s appointment power. In a second statement, it criticized the chief justice for professing ignorance of already known reasons for returning the nomination because they were absent from the official document.
Community discussion
View board →Loading discussions…
Politics ·
Cho argues at parliamentary audit that parliament and president cannot intervene in Supreme Court nominations
Chief Justice Cho told the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee audit on the 6th that parliament and the president cannot intervene in the chief justice's nominations. He said this mirrors the chief justice's inability to intervene in parliament's consent process or the president's appointment process.
Cho cited Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. The provision states that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president with the National Assembly's consent upon nomination by the chief justice, and he argued that each institution has its own exclusive authority.
He described consultations with the presidential office as voluntary cooperation to facilitate prompt and smooth appointments rather than cooperation having a constitutional basis. Cho said that foregoing consultations poses no constitutional problem and that the Constitution places no restriction on written nominations.
Regarding the Supreme Court justice candidate recommendation committee, Cho said that he too had respected the committee over the years. However, he argued that parliament has no constitutional authority to establish the committee system and that disregarding the committee would be a political issue rather than unconstitutional or unlawful.
Cho also said there was insufficient legal basis for him to testify as a witness at the audit. He argued that intervention in the chief justice's nominations by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, which handles parliament's consent process, violates the constitutional allocation of powers and judicial independence, and that imposing procedures and methods that infringe on them is unlawful.
Community discussion
View board →Loading discussions…
Politics ·
Kim Min-seok raises Cho Hee-dae's resignation over justice renomination dispute
Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok raised the prospect of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae resigning over the issue of renominating a Supreme Court justice candidate. Responding to Cho's statement that renomination had no constitutional basis, Kim criticized him, saying he would be better off leaving office if he could not resolve the issue.
Kim made the remarks during an appearance on Democratic Party TV's YouTube program Minti 07 on the 7th.
Kim also criticized the issue involving Cho's official expense records, which listed hotel restaurants and other venues and had come under scrutiny during the previous day's parliamentary audit by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee. He suggested that Cho would have felt uncomfortable and embarrassed at having to discuss omakase dining, and claimed that the expense issue had also surfaced because Cho had failed to resolve the renomination issue.
Community discussion
View board →Loading discussions…