National Assembly Fast Track Shortening Act Passed; Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's Written Recommendation Divides Legal Community

The Fast Track Shortening Act passed the plenary session today. Approved with 153 votes in favor and 81 against among 324 present, this bill significantly shortens the review periods for standing committees and the Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

Under the existing bill processing procedure, if the review period in the standing committee and the Legislation and Judiciary Committee each exceeds 60 and 30 days, respectively, the bill is automatically put to a vote in the plenary session. This measure aims to prevent bills from being stalled in specific committees and to promote efficient operation of the National Assembly.

During the discussion process for the Fast Track Shortening Act, some political circles expressed regret that institutional reform to lower the negotiation group requirement from 20 to 10 members was excluded from the discussion. Rep. Song Young-gil and others have consistently stated that easing the negotiation group requirements is necessary to ensure independent legislative activities.

They expressed a critical view that institutional reforms, such as easing negotiation group requirements, should have preceded discussions about merging with the Joguk Innovation Party.

In the plenary session vote on the Fast Track Shortening Act, lawmakers Jeon Lam, Lee Jun-seok, Lee Ju-young, Han Dong-hoon, and others cast dissenting votes. Their opposition is primarily interpreted as an intention to reject playing a secondary role to the Democratic Party and to assert their presence.

Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's written recommendation of Supreme Court justice nominees has sparked controversy, and past suspicions of perjury during his confirmation hearing have resurfaced. During the hearing, Chief Justice Cho is suspected of making false statements regarding his knowledge of cases pending in the Supreme Court.

New탐사 (New Tam-sa) reported that before the hearing, public relations judges had informed him in advance about cases with potential conflicts of interest, and attorney Park Hee-tae had also reportedly warned Chief Justice Cho about past conflicts of interest via registered mail.

These circumstances are intensifying doubts about Chief Justice Cho's qualifications and integrity.

The legal community is sharply divided over Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's written recommendation. Hanbyeon (Lawyers for Human Rights and Unification of the Korean Peninsula) defended Chief Justice Cho, stating that the right to recommend Supreme Court justices is solely the Chief Justice's inherent authority.

Conversely, Minbyun (Lawyers for a Democratic Society) condemned the unilateral recommendation without consultation with the President as a clear abuse of power and urged Chief Justice Cho to apologize to the public.

The practice of prior consultation between the President and the Chief Justice before exercising the right to recommend Supreme Court justices is interpreted as an important mechanism to prevent personnel conflicts that can arise under a system of separation of powers. Although not legally binding, this practice has served to prevent conflicts between the Chief Justice and the President over top-level appointments.

Additionally, the view is raised that for the realization of popular sovereignty, the elected power, the President, should be involved in personnel matters.

The necessity of personnel consultation between the President and the Chief Justice has been raised. The host emphasized that respecting the President's will aligns with the principle of popular sovereignty.

This demonstrates the perspective that it is legitimate for the President, elected by the people, to have their opinion reflected to some extent in the exercise of important personnel powers during the administration of state affairs.

Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's written recommendation has been criticized as an attempt to strengthen the vested interests of judicial elites. The host pointed out that the people have never granted Chief Justice Cho the exclusive right to select Supreme Court justices.

The opinion was also put forth that exercising unilateral personnel authority under the pretext of separation of powers reveals a misunderstanding of popular sovereignty.

It has been alleged that Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has continuously delayed and prolonged the re-recommendation of Supreme Court justices until his preferred candidates were accepted. It was also pointed out that he even used a method of written recommendation without consulting the President.

Furthermore, suspicions have arisen that he pressured candidates selected by the Candidate Recommendation Committee to resign. The host characterized these actions as a clear 'abuse of power' and a 'soft coup'.

Criticism has been raised regarding the practice of the Chief Justice not directly attending the National Assembly and instead sending the Minister of Court Administration. Rep. Kim Yong-min questioned whether the Chief Justice's non-attendance was based on law or practice, highlighting the difference between law and custom.

A legal debate ensued, arguing that custom does not have to be followed, but law must be obeyed, and therefore the Chief Justice should not attempt to evade legal obligations by citing custom.

Party leader Kim Min-seok stated that while he believes Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae qualifies for impeachment, he strategically believes it is necessary to allow more time to form public opinion, as there is not enough time to inform the public. To this end, he plans to strengthen public relations, including posting banners nationwide.

Kim aims to use the controversy surrounding Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae as an opportunity to promote internal party unity and strengthen party members' cohesion.

It has been argued that Rep. Lee Jin-sook should be dismissed from her parliamentary position for violating the spirit of the Constitution. A bill to suspend a lawmaker's qualifications with the approval of a majority of the National Assembly has already been submitted, and there have been calls to pass this bill to suspend Rep. Lee Jin-sook's qualifications.

This is interpreted as a strong measure that considers even the removal of a lawmaker's position, treating a violation of the constitutional spirit as a serious matter. Regardless of whether this bill actually passes, it is expected to serve as a strong political pressure tactic against Rep. Lee Jin-sook.

Such movements demonstrate that discussions on upholding the Constitution and strengthening lawmaker ethics are actively underway within the National Assembly.