Home > Opinion > Editorials

End the popular vote to select heads of courts

Published: 20 Nov. 2024, 20:08

The Supreme Court is poised to dump the system of choosing head judges of local courts through internal recommendation due to its downside of causing delays in trials. In the top court’s digital bulletin board, Justice Cheon Dae-yeop, head of the National Court Administration, criticized that the current system of appointing head judges of the courts through popular votes by their bench peers has caused “various problems and side effects” despite its good intention of reflecting the opinions of judges.

The bottom-up appointment system in which a head judge candidate can be recommended through a vote among judges in the same court was introduced by the progressive Supreme Court Chief Justice Kim Myeong-soo in 2019. But the new appointment system caused many problems, such as debunking its original design of decentralizing the appointment authority of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and granting greater autonomy to local courts. Also, popularity was prioritized over the character and eligibility of a candidate to head a court. In some cases, courts turned into political theaters vying for votes. The internal feud translated into delays in trials, much to the dismay of civilians.

A competition of goodwill and wise counsel is essential to raise efficiency in trials. To draw the best out of trials, judges of quality must be appreciated while underperformers should be encouraged.

To not lose favor from junior judges, senior members had to abstain from playing the difficult parenting role. The popular voting system can be largely blamed for last year’s dismal settlement results in civilian cases where the first ruling took an average 473.4 days, more than 60 percent longer than in 2017.

Cold cases piled up because judges internally agreed to write up three rulings per week and tended to favor simple cases. In his inauguration address last December, Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said, “Courts are exacerbating public sufferings as they failed to uphold civilian rights to speedy trials.” The renunciation of a popular vote should be a tipping point for an overhaul and reawakening for the court.

What caused the radical changes under the last liberal government was the abuse of administrative power under former Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae. Though he was cleared of abuse charges in the first trial, a return to the past bureaucracy of the judiciary will only invite recoil. Since the Supreme Court will continue to receive recommendations for head judges even while scrapping a popular vote, it must abstain from overstretching authority.

It is a reasonable step to pave the way for senior judges in high courts to bid for head judges of district courts. A judge with the experience of presiding over the appellate cases can surely bring merits to the supervision of first trials in district courts.