South Korean court initiates review of Constitutional Court decision, sparking judicial conflict

A South Korean court has taken an unprecedented step by initiating judicial review of a decision by the Constitutional Court, potentially reigniting a long-simmering conflict between the nation's highest judicial bodies. The Seoul Central District Court's Criminal Division 5 stated that delays in Constitutional Court proceedings could infringe upon defendants' basic rights, prompting its decision to examine the Constitutional Court's actions.

“

All state powers are bound by the Constitution, including the Constitutional Court itself.

The court's explanation explicitly stated that all state powers are bound by the Constitution, including the Constitutional Court itself. It pointed to a specific case where a constitutional appeal filed in 2022 had seen no significant procedural progress for four years. The court noted that the Constitutional Court only recently sought opinions from relevant ministries in April, without adequately ensuring the appellant's right to participate in the process. This prolonged inaction, the court suggested, could be a violation of the Constitution.

“

The court cited potential infringement of defendants' basic rights due to delays in Constitutional Court proceedings.

This action by the court is seen by some as a direct response to the introduction of the "trial appeal" system, which allows the Constitutional Court to overturn final judgments made by regular courts. By asserting its right to review the Constitutional Court's decisions, the court appears to be pushing back and asserting its own authority. Observers suggest the court aims to emphasize that the Supreme Court holds the ultimate authority in interpreting the law.

“

The Constitutional Court's decisions are subject to judicial review by the courts, and the Supreme Court holds the ultimate authority in this review.

However, there are doubts about the practical impact of this judicial review. Since courts have historically not ruled on the constitutionality of Constitutional Court decisions, it remains unclear whether this move will yield a substantive outcome. Some legal experts believe the court's primary goal is to pressure the Constitutional Court into expediting its proceedings rather than fundamentally challenging its authority. The Constitutional Court has been asked to provide its response within a month, but its willingness to engage is uncertain.

“

The court's primary goal is to pressure the Constitutional Court into expediting its proceedings rather than fundamentally challenging its authority.