PPP to filibuster all bills, including constitutional amendment, until June 4

From the perspective of the Hankyoreh, the People Power Party's (PPP) decision to employ unlimited debate, or filibuster, on all legislation, including constitutional amendments, signals a significant escalation in political deadlock. The party's stated intention to block the National Assembly Speaker's agenda until June 4th is presented as a direct response to what they perceive as an "unilateral" move to push through contentious issues.

“

We will respond with unlimited debate to all agenda items that are unilaterally convened without agreement.

The core of the PPP's argument, as reported, centers on the principle of 'res judicata' (il-sa-bu-ui) – the idea that a matter once decided cannot be re-litigated within the same legislative session. They contend that the Speaker's attempt to re-vote on a constitutional amendment, which they believe was already effectively rejected, is unconstitutional. This legalistic stance frames their filibuster as a defense of parliamentary procedure and constitutional integrity against perceived overreach by the Speaker's office.

“

Re-voting on a constitutional amendment that has already concluded its first vote in the National Assembly is an unconstitutional act.

However, the article also presents the counter-argument from the Speaker's office, which interprets parliamentary rules differently. They maintain that a failure to meet quorum in a vote does not constitute a formal rejection, thus allowing for a re-vote. This highlights a fundamental disagreement over procedural interpretation, which the PPP is leveraging to its political advantage. The Hankyoreh, in reporting this, implicitly underscores the partisan nature of these procedural battles, where legal arguments become tools in the broader political struggle. The unprecedented nature of filibustering a constitutional amendment is noted, emphasizing the extraordinary measures being taken.

“

In the past, the National Assembly has considered a lack of quorum not as a rejection, but as a confirmation of the parliamentary will, and has proceeded with re-votes.

This situation is particularly interesting from a South Korean perspective because it showcases the intense legislative brinkmanship that can occur. The use of the filibuster, a tool designed to allow minority parties to voice dissent, is being employed here by a major party to halt the legislative process entirely. The Hankyoreh's coverage, while reporting the facts, subtly conveys the disruptive impact of such tactics on governance and the potential for legislative paralysis, a recurring theme in South Korean politics.

“

The principle of 'il-sa-bu-ui' (res judicata) applies only when a rejection has been confirmed.