Chief Justice's Written Nomination Sparks Controversy in South Korea

South Korean Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae faces strong criticism for his "unilateral" act of submitting two Supreme Court justice candidates to President Lee Jae-myung via written notification, bypassing the customary consultation process. This move has ignited accusations that Jo is disregarding constitutional principles and acting arbitrarily.

Adding to the controversy, the Court Administration Office revealed it was considering voiding the recommendation results for a candidate to succeed former Supreme Court Justice Roh Tae-hak and restarting the selection process. This revelation has led to claims that the office pressured potential nominees to withdraw their candidacies. Court Administration Office head Roh Kyung-pil admitted to calling the four recommended candidates, some of whom agreed to a re-nomination process while others opposed it, stating it was an idea to resolve a six-month standoff between the presidential office and the Supreme Court.

“

Why is Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae trying to go down the path of a war criminal like Han Duck-soo?

Critics argue that the Court Administration Office's actions are highly problematic, as they involve considering the complete nullification of legally completed recommendations to exclude candidates favored by the president and push through those desired by the Chief Justice. Such behavior, they contend, undermines the rule of law, as the judiciary is expected to uphold laws created by the National Assembly.

Jo Hee-dae delayed the nomination for over five months after Justice Roh Tae-hak's retirement before submitting the candidates in writing without meeting President Lee. The constitution stipulates that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice and with the National Assembly's consent. This provision implies that the Chief Justice should exercise their recommendation power while respecting the President's appointment authority and the National Assembly's consent role. Historically, all Chief Justices have consulted with the presidential office, adhering to this constitutional spirit. The article questions why Jo Hee-dae is acting unilaterally.

“

The Chief Justice's recommendation power for Supreme Court justices is a core authority for judicial independence. Communicating and coordinating with anyone in advance would go against the constitutional intent of the Chief Justice's unique authority for judicial independence.