Rival parties clashed again on the 15th over Chief Justice Jo Hee-de's refusal to renominate a Supreme Court justice candidate, during a parliamentary audit of the Ministry of Government Legislation by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Legislation Minister Cho Won-chul backed the position of President Lee Jae-myung and the ruling party, saying the chief justice's refusal to comply "amounts to a failure to fulfill a constitutional duty." The People Power Party pushed back strongly, calling it "an arbitrary interpretation with no legal basis and an attempt to shield the government."
Committee members from both parties traded sharp arguments at the audit over the president's request for a renomination and the chief justice's refusal. Lawmakers of the Democratic Party of Korea argued that Jo had created a vacancy on the bench by declining the Presidential Office's renomination request. Rep. Kim Dong-a of the Democratic Party said, "If the president has requested a renomination, a constitutional obligation arises for the chief justice to carry it out," adding that "refusing it is a dereliction of duty." Rep. Lee Sung-yoon joined in, saying, "The chief justice's failure to nominate a Supreme Court justice for 225 days amounts to a dereliction of duty."
Cho drew a line in response, saying, "The nomination power carries the meaning of a recommendation or proposal, and it does not have binding force requiring the president to appoint the nominated candidate." He went on to support the ruling party's logic, saying, "If the appointment of a Supreme Court justice is delayed and the operation of the Supreme Court is disrupted because the nomination power is not exercised, that means the chief justice has not fulfilled his constitutional duty."
The People Power Party, by contrast, questioned whether the president's renomination request itself was grounded in the constitution or statute. When Rep. Kim Tae-gyu asked, "Where in the constitution or in any law is the legal basis for demanding a renomination?" Cho replied that it was "a conclusion that naturally follows as a matter of logical interpretation." When Kim criticized that as "an arbitrary interpretation," Cho countered, "Every constitutional scholar interprets it that way."
Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun also took issue with Cho's interpretation, saying the president's appointment power, the chief justice's nomination power and the National Assembly's consent power are each granted by the constitution. "The president's demand for a renomination could end up blocking the National Assembly's power of consent to an appointment," Yoon said, criticizing the view that "the president's appointment power takes precedence" as "a dictatorial notion." Rep. Park Hyung-soo said that "if the president can refuse nominations until a candidate he wants emerges, the chief justice's nomination power could be rendered meaningless," and said Cho's answers matched the position of the president's side.
The two sides also faced off over the interpretation of Article 84 of the constitution in connection with the suspension of President Lee's trials. Article 84 provides that the president shall not be subject to criminal prosecution while in office, except in cases of insurrection or treason. At issue is whether "prosecution" here covers not only indictment but also the maintenance of an indictment during trial proceedings.
On this point, Cho answered to the effect that the courts' decisions were justified, saying, "Every bench hearing these cases judged that prosecution includes not only indictment but also the maintenance of the indictment, and halted the trials." When People Power Party lawmakers pressed him to provide the basis for a majority view in academia, Rep. Kim Han-kyu of the Democratic Party shot back that "shaking a sitting president over a matter on which the judiciary has already ruled is a refusal to accept the presidential election result."
The People Power Party also raised suspicions of a patronage appointment, pointing to Cho's past record as a defense lawyer, while stepping up pressure by bringing up his remarks on the possibility of a sitting president serving a consecutive term under a constitutional amendment, as well as records of his spending from the ministry's operating expenses. On the question of a consecutive-term amendment, Cho drew a line, saying he had "made clear that it would not apply to a president in office at the time of the amendment." He also flatly denied the allegation of personal use of operating expenses, saying there had "not been a single instance of personal use."