Home > National > Politics

Acting President Choi tells lawmakers he declined justice's appointment due to 'lack of consensus'

Published: 06 Feb. 2025, 16:31 Updated: 06 Feb. 2025, 16:51

MICHAEL LEE
[email protected]

Acting President Choi Sang-mok, right, speaks while sitting next to impeached Prime Minister Han Duck-soo at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Feb. 6. [NEWS1]

Acting President Choi Sang-mok told a parliamentary committee investigating the Dec. 3 declaration of martial law that he declined to appoint Judge Ma Eun-hyuk to the Constitutional Court because of "a lack of bipartisan consensus" on Thursday.

Choi, who attended the committee’s third hearing at the National Assembly alongside impeached Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, told Rep. Joo Jin-woo of the conservative People Power Party (PPP) that he would be willing to proceed with Ma’s nomination if the PPP and the liberal Democratic Party (DP) could agree on the appointment.

Han, who became acting president upon President Yoon Suk Yeol’s suspension from office on Dec. 14, was also impeached on Dec. 27 after refusing to fill three spots on the nine-member court bench. He, too, argued that vacancies in the Constitutional Court should be filled by bipartisan agreement.

Although Choi appointed the PPP-backed Jo Han-chang and DP-backed Jeong Gye-seon by way of a political compromise, he has held off on appointing Ma, whose candidacy has been opposed by the PPP.

National Speaker Woo Won-shik filed a competence dispute case to the Constitutional Court last month alleging that Choi's refusal to appoint Ma constituted an “infringement of the National Assembly’s authority.”

Under the Constitutional Court Act, the president, National Assembly and the chief justice of the Supreme Court have the right to appoint three justices each to the bench.

In his comments during the hearing, Joo argued that the three spots on the Constitutional Court bench reserved for candidates selected by the National Assembly have “usually been filled by one person nominated by the ruling party, one nominated by the opposition party and one chosen by bipartisan consensus.”

The PPP lawmaker noted that even after a candidate has been selected after negotiations between the two parties, the nomination could be canceled if previously unknown issues came to light during confirmation hearings.

Joo also blamed the DP for the political controversy surrounding the three vacancies on the Constitutional Court, arguing that the seats remained empty long after the previous incumbents’ terms expired in October last year because “the DP refused to abide by established norms.”

Joo further argued that “confirmation hearings for the new justices did not take place because the PPP opposed holding a parliamentary vote to nominate the candidates, making it clear that Ma is a candidate regarding whom there is no bipartisan consensus.”

In response to Joo’s remarks, Choi said that he shared the PPP lawmaker’s assessment that the parties had failed to reach an agreement regarding the court nominations.

Choi also came under fire from DP lawmakers during Thursday’s committee hearing for receiving a memo that included a plan to establish a temporary legislative body to bypass the National Assembly under Yoon’s martial law decree.

However, he told the committee that he was “too stunned” by Yoon’s sudden decision to declare martial law “to pay much attention to the folded piece of paper” handed to him by an unspecified individual.

In response to DP Rep. Kim Byung-joo’s question regarding why he did not read the note, Choi said he thought it was an informal message rather than an official memo.

Choi said he only read the note at 1:50 a.m. on Dec. 4, after the National Assembly had voted to rescind Yoon’s decree. He said he decided to ignore the memo.

During the third hearing of his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court on Jan. 21, Yoon denied handing such a note to Choi.

Kim Yong-hyun, Yoon’s former defense minister, later testified that he wrote the memo.

Prime Minister Han told lawmakers at Thursday’s committee hearing that all of Yoon’s ministers who were present at the Dec. 3 Cabinet meeting opposed the president’s announcement that he planned to declare martial law.

Han also said the gathering did not follow Cabinet meeting protocols.

Update, Feb. 6: Choi's response to DP Rep. Kim Byung-joo and Han's remarks added.

BY MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]