By Naming Names, a Lawmaker Sparks a Constitutional Debate

A libel suit filed Saturday by the ruling Millennium Democratic Party against an opposition lawmaker has ignited a debate regarding how the prosecution will interpret Article 45 of the Korean Constitution which grants representatives immunity for statements made while parliament is in session.

The immunity clause has been the subject of controversy in the past. Under the article, lawmakers are given a great deal of leeway with regard to their comments or positions taken on a vote while performing their duties as parliamentarians.

But, in the absence of a precedent to determine whether immunity should be extended to parliamentarians who utter slanderous remarks based on rumors and innuendo, the prosecution has decided to review the matter.

In its suit, the ruling party states that Rep. Lee Ju-young of the opposition Grand National Party crossed the line of acceptable parliamentary conduct and is not immune from prosecution because he disclosed the names of ruling party politicians allegedly involved in a recent bribery scandal triggered by the president of a venture company.

Mr. Lee dropped the political bombshell during a parliamentary hearing last Thursday by identifying four figures closely tied to the Kim Dae-jung administration as being involved in the scandal. Included among the four was President Kim Dae-jung's eldest son, Rep. Kim Hong-il.

The nation's legal community is of the opinion that lawmakers should not enjoy immunity in cases where slander or violence occurs. "A statement that is libelous but is based on facts, and functions to fulfill the people's right to information may be protected by the immunity clause, but a statement that is libelous and based on rumors can not be protected," said Lee Suk-yon, the head of the Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice.

A lawmaker has never stood trial for libelous comments made during a session of parliament.

by Kim Ji-soo