Clash Between Rule of Law and Democracy, and Difficulties in Supreme Court Justice Appointments

It is the procedure stipulated in the Constitution and law for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to propose one person from among those recommended by the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee. The Recommendation Committee is dissolved after proposing a specific group of candidates, and must be re-formed to recommend new candidates. However, criticism is being raised that the current situation, where the president vetoes a specific individual, is effectively no different from the president exercising the right to propose.

The Democratic Party and the Blue House are demanding that the Chief Justice propose again from the remaining three candidates from the original recommendation pool, without re-forming the Recommendation Committee. However, there are many opinions that two of the remaining three candidates are unsuitable due to their roles as presiding judges and responsibilities as election commission members. Such a demand can be seen as an act disregarding constitutional procedures.

It was pointed out that re-forming the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee to approve a new group of candidates and then proposing from that group is the unavoidable follow-up action according to constitutional interpretation. If this situation continues, filing a constitutional dispute judgment could be a legitimate response under constitutional procedure. It is analyzed that Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's character makes it highly unlikely he will accept the Democratic Party's demands.

While consultation can occur during the proposal process, openly and formally demanding a re-proposal is considered unconstitutional. The rejection of an appointment motion by the National Assembly or the exercise of a presidential veto are constitutionally prescribed procedures. In contrast, openly demanding the re-proposal of a specific candidate is criticized as an act exceeding constitutional authority.

Amidst intense pressure due to the Supreme Court justice appointment process, the Board of Audit and Inspection announced audit results stating that the Supreme Court had paid 2 million won monthly in career payments to Supreme Court justices. The audit period was from 2022 to September 2025, and concerns are being raised about the unusual timing of the announcement during this period of conflict. This raises questions as to whether there is an intention to pressure the Supreme Court.

Democracy without the rule of law can lead to dictatorship, while conversely, the rule of law without democracy can become a dictatorship of career public servants. Since democracy without the rule of law risks turning into fascism, the rule of law and democracy must be in a complementary relationship. The Supreme Court is a crucial institution with the power to interpret the rule of law in such matters.

With an additional 20 Supreme Court justice appointments scheduled, warnings are being issued that political influence could significantly impact the composition of the Supreme Court. If Supreme Court justices are appointed in the way desired by Lee Jae-myung or the Blue House, the Supreme Court would effectively lose its independence. If Supreme Court justices are appointed in violation of the principles of personnel composition, the independence of the judiciary will inevitably be lost, which could lead to a long-term crisis of the rule of law.

A parliamentary current affairs inquiry is not a procedure that inherently involves witness selection. Witness selection is only possible when legal requirements are met, such as during parliamentary inspections or investigations. Therefore, it is legitimate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to be absent from a current affairs inquiry for the sake of judicial independence, and criticizing this overlooks the procedural illegality.

Criticism arose that Lee Jae-myung's quoting of Morgan Stanley's interest rate forecast had an inappropriate background. His message of falling housing prices is analyzed to contain a political intention to suppress real estate purchasing sentiment. However, these remarks overlook realistic policy failures such as supply shortages and loan regulations, and are criticized as being too blunt to be considered effective policy.

A proposal was made that auction situations for single-home owners and multi-home owners should be approached differently. In particular, it was suggested that when single-home owners' housing stability is threatened by auctions, the state should provide practical assistance. Current policies are criticized for not providing sufficient measures for these single-home owners in crisis.

It was pointed out that high comprehensive real estate tax and capital gains tax are reducing homeowners' disposable income, putting them in a situation similar to paying monthly rent. In this situation, the policy of using taxes to buy houses and convert them into public housing is criticized as a contradictory policy. An analysis also suggests that excessive tax burdens are causing distortions in the housing market.

It was mentioned that in addition to homes going up for auction due to loan defaults, a significant number of homes are being seized and put up for auction due to tax arrears. The structure in which the state, as a creditor, acquires property through auction due to tax arrears raises questions about whether it aligns with the principles of a capitalist society. Concerns are being raised that this situation could infringe on citizens' property rights and distort the role of the state.

Criticism has been raised against the government's policy of managing 100 trillion won in surplus tax revenue, generated while the budget is being implemented, separately under the name of a 'Future Response Fund' instead of including it in the budget. This is a serious problem as it can create a blind spot in control without parliamentary budget review. Furthermore, there is a high risk of transparency issues as it may be operated under a broad name without clear specific project objectives.

It was pointed out that if funds with unclear uses and plans are accumulated without parliamentary control, there is a risk that Lee Jae-myung could use them arbitrarily as he sees fit. The ambiguity of the fund's name, 'Future Response,' could become a justification for misappropriation of funds, leading to concerns that citizens' taxes could be used like a 'personal piggy bank' by a specific individual. This method of fund operation is criticized for potentially harming national fiscal soundness and weakening accountability.

The National Finance Act is a law that governs national finances in general, not a specific law related to a particular fund. Therefore, inserting the Future Response Fund into the National Finance Act is pointed out as a very unusual case. Despite concerns expressed by financial academics regarding this method, criticism is being raised that there is insufficient discussion on this within the political sphere.

With cases of shoddy police investigations being pointed out, it has been argued that the prosecutor's supplementary investigation function after a case is transferred is essential. If a Central Investigation Agency is established and the prosecutor's supplementary investigation function is lost, a judicial system gap could occur where investigations are buried or shoddy, leading to innocent people suffering or criminals not being punished. Concerns are being raised that adjusting investigation powers without institutional improvement will ultimately lead to public harm.

Questions were raised about the police initially mentioning the possibility of suicide in the Jang Min-hal death case and then reversing their statement to an unclear cause of death. It was pointed out that while the head of the National Investigation Headquarters is in charge of investigations, acting Police Commissioner Yoo Jae-seong represents the entire police organization and effectively has no investigative authority. The failure to sufficiently consider the possibility of a crime during the initial missing person report, leading to insufficient securing of important data, was also pointed out as a problem.

It was pointed out that clear evidence of an economic motive or despair that would lead to an extreme choice in the Jang Min-hal death case has not yet been revealed. The process between the missing person report and the discovery of the body was not smooth, and criticism was raised about the police's inadequate initial response. It was also speculated that the head of the investigation headquarters might have given a generic answer to avoid responsibility. Concerns were raised that such inadequate handling processes could erode public trust.