hankyoreh

March 19.

“Even during the military government, they never had the notion of exercising the right to appoint judges.”

A strongly worded statement of opposition emerged Thursday from the Supreme Court, describing a judicial system “improvement” bill presented by the Grand National Party’s Special Committee for Judicial System Improvement to be a negation of the separation of powers, a dominant principle of the Republic of Korea’s Constitution. A Seoul-area chief judge criticized the “Judicial Personnel Appointment Committee,” which would allow the legislature to set the stage for the administration to involve itself in the placement of judges, by saying that the GNP had meddled with a very sensitive fuse that even the military administration was ostensibly unable to meddle with because of Constitutionally guaranteed trial independence.

The GNP plan would allow six people from outside of Supreme Court while allowing only three people from the inside, and in addition to that, the GNP plan allows Justice Minister to nominate people from outside the Supreme Court who can participate in voting on placing and transferring judges.

Another chief judge said Friday, “In the 1980s, a liaison officer from the Agency for National Security Planning, the predecessor of the National Intelligence Service, was effectively stationed permanently in the Supreme Court Chief Justice’s office.” The judge added, “This officer applied pressure so that uncompromising judges who delivered what in the government’s terms would be called ‘problem rulings’ would not be given criminal trial assignments or major cases.”

In other words, during the dictatorship era, judges’ approaches in handling political cases and their individual dispositions were given major consideration in appointments, and observers are now questioning whether the GNP might attempt to use its legislative power to place judges suited to its tastes in criminal divisions.

The GNP special committee, which is made up of attorneys, must have anticipated fierce objections from the judiciary. Many within and outside the legal world are saying that this overreach may reflect an impetuous belief that ordinary judges have to be controlled strictly in order to keep the judiciary in line. Ordinary judges have already been incurring the ruling party’s wrath. In a number of cases such as trials on the candlelight rallies that created difficulties for the administration, or the Minerva and PD Notebook cases, which prosecutors pushed ahead with despite criticisms of reckless prosecution, criminal judges have resulted either in requests for unconstitutionality judgments or in not-guilty rulings in criminal courts. Each time, the GNP has expressed strong discontentment and blamed the problem on “young judges.”

Neither the president nor administration officials can do anything about the appointments of the ordinary judges that are displeasing the administration. To date, President Lee Myung-bak has appointed three Supreme Court Justices: Yang Chang-soo, Shin Young-chul and Min Il-young. In August, Justice Kim Young-ran is to retire, and next year Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon and Justices Yang Seung-tae, Park Si-hwan and Kim Ji-hyung are to step down. In 2012, Justices Lee Hong-hoon, Park Ill-hoan, Kim Nung-hwan, Jeon Soo-ahn and Ahn Dai-hee will all be retiring at the same time. Given that the administration’s term in office ends in February 2013, President Lee will exercise appointment approval for the Chief Justice and all other justices at the National Assembly.

However, in the case of ordinary judges, not only does the Chief Justice hold appointment rights, but even these are subject to a system of appointment circulation, meaning that appointments will occur at a mostly predictable level. Another uncomfortable fact for the ruling party was a change in the system so that chief judges discuss and vote on issues related to appointments at judges’ meetings, following an incident in which current Supreme Court Justice Shin Young-chul infringed upon the trial rights of ordinary judges during his time as Seoul Central District Court chief justice.

A Supreme Court official said, “This bill reflects the thinking that because the results of rulings have been problematic, the judges themselves should be replaced.” Another Seoul-area judge described the mood among judges by saying, “This has led to a surge of concern about the Grand National Party’s political motives.”

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]