[The Fountain] The privilege of immunity went too far
Wi Mun-heeThe author is a national team reporter of the JoongAng Ilbo.
The freedom of speech in the National Assembly and immunity from arrest while a legislative session is underway are the notable privileges Korean lawmakers enjoy. The two privileges have been guaranteed since the ratification of the first Constitution in 1948.
The privilege of free speech (Article 45 of the Constitution) is the right of a member of the Assembly not to be held responsible for his/her remarks and votes while serving their duties in the legislature. The purpose is to ensure their free speech and voting choice as lawmakers.
The history of the privilege of free speech dates back to the Bill of Rights the British Parliament dedicated to King William III in 1689. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights provided “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament,” protecting the parliamentary power in the United Kingdom.
Recently, however, many European countries are preparing mechanisms to strictly interpret the privilege of free speech. In Germany, a remark made while on duty in the parliament is excluded from immunity in case of defaming others. Immunity is to ensure free political activities of lawmakers, not to free them from any accountability for making ungrounded exposures.
In 1967, the British Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended the abolishment of the privilege of immunity from arrest. Britain was also the first country to stipulate the immunity from arrest for lawmakers by enacting the Privilege of Parliament Act in 1603. The purpose was to prevent the king from attempting to dissolve the parliament by detaining its members.
Article 44 of Korea’s Constitution stipulates the right of lawmakers not to be arrested without the consent of the National Assembly unless they are caught in action. In every election, promises are made on abolishing the privileges of free speech and immunity from arrest as they are often abused — and misused — only to protect the corrupt lawmakers, contrary to their original purpose.
In the National Assembly, only 16 of the 61 motions submitted to arrest or detain a lawmaker have passed so far. As a revision of the clause on the privilege of immunity from arrest stipulated by our Constitution requires support from two thirds of all lawmakers and approval from a majority of voters in a national referendum, the debate on the issue often fizzled out.
On February 16, the prosecution requested an arrest warrant for Democratic Party Chair Lee Jae-myung over suspicions of bribery and abuse of power. As a presidential candidate, Lee had promised to give up the immunity from arrest while campaigning in the presidential election in 2022. In September that year, he also declared to give up the privilege of free speech in a speech to the National Assembly. I hope Lee would voluntarily go to a court to determine whether to arrest him or not, instead of waiting for his peers to vote down a motion to be submitted by the Justice Department next week on behalf of the court.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)