Son In-hyuk, secretary general of the Constitutional Court, signaled that the Supreme Court bears responsibility for the standoff between the presidential office and the judiciary over the nomination of Supreme Court justices, remarks likely to stir controversy.
At a National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee audit on the 13th, Rep. Park Kyoun-taek of the Democratic Party of Korea told Son: "As the Constitution stipulates, the president's appointment power is the higher concept, and Chief Justice Jo Hee-de is denying the Constitution. Looking at your expression, it seems you are indicating that Chief Justice Jo is at fault." Son replied, "Yes." The answer is read as suggesting that Jo bears part of the blame for the nomination dispute.
Asked by Rep. Kim Eui-kyeom of the Democratic Party about the interpretation of Article 104, Clause 2 of the Constitution — which states that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president, on the nomination of the chief justice and with the consent of the National Assembly — Son said, "For the nomination power and the appointment power each to be properly exercised, duties of respect and cooperation are a precondition." He added, "If the chief justice's nomination power, the National Assembly's consent power and the president's appointment power are exercised with mutual respect and cooperation, this can certainly be resolved."
When Rep. Kim Ki-pyo of the Democratic Party asked whether it is unconstitutional for the legislature to examine whether the nomination power was exercised appropriately, rather than denying the power itself, Son said, "I do not think that in itself can be judged unconstitutional."
On a competence dispute case filed with the Constitutional Court by the People Power Party over the justice nominations, Son said a dismissal without review was also possible. "When the president sends a consent motion on the appointment of Supreme Court justices to the National Assembly, it is naturally asked on the premise of appointment," he said. Son withheld judgment on whether the president's appointment power or the chief justice's nomination power takes precedence.
Also at the committee audit, Oh Dong-woon, head of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, called a proposed revision "a deeply worrying part." The revision under review would limit the office's investigative scope to judges, prosecutors, police and other investigative and judicial bodies, and hand investigations of the president and lawmakers to a new serious crimes investigation agency. "The authority to investigate crimes by high-ranking officials, including the president and lawmakers, is held concurrently by the CIO and the serious crimes investigation agency," he said.