Presidential office renews call for swift renomination despite chief justice's constitutional objection

The presidential office offered no separate position on Chief Justice Cho's assertion that its request to renominate a Supreme Court candidate was unconstitutional. It nevertheless renewed its demand for the candidate to be nominated again promptly.

Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee's audit of the Supreme Court on the 6th that involvement by the assembly and president in nominating a Supreme Court candidate was unconstitutional. Having rejected the presidential office's renomination request, he used the term unconstitutional six times during that day's audit.

Chief Justice Cho argued that interference in nominations violated the constitutional distribution of powers among institutions and judicial independence. The presidential office requested renomination after a candidate was nominated in writing in August without prior coordination with the president, and Cho rejected the request last month.

He explained that, just as the chief justice cannot intervene in the assembly's consent process or the president's appointment process, the assembly and president cannot intervene in the chief justice's nominations. He presented this position by reading a prepared document in response to criticism from Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Gi-pyo.

During the audit, the Democratic Party argued that refusing renomination denied the president's appointment authority and constituted grounds for impeachment. The People Power Party objected, accusing the other side of trying to choose Supreme Court justices at will.

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.

Cho argues at parliamentary audit that parliament and president cannot intervene in Supreme Court nominations

Community discussion