Legal teams of parliament, acting president clash over competency in critical justice appointment case

Home > National > Politics

Legal teams of parliament, acting president clash over competency in critical justice appointment case

Published: 10 Feb. 2025, 18:40

CHO JUNG-WOO
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Justices of the Constitutional Court stand at the court in Jongno District, central Seoul, during an oral argument on a competence dispute case regarding the appointment of a ninth justice on Feb. 10. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Attorneys representing the National Assembly and acting President Choi Sang-mok clashed Monday over the legality of a competence dispute challenging the constitutionality of Choi's decision to withhold the appointment of the ninth Constitutional Court justice.

The Constitutional Court, which was set to rule on whether Choi’s decision to hold off the appointment of justice nominee Ma Eun-hyeok — recommended by the liberal Democratic Party (DP) — was unconstitutional, held a second hearing on the case filed by National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik. It said the ruling date would be determined after further review.

The Constitutional Court’s decision is seen as a critical factor in determining the fate of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Under the Constitution, at least six justices must vote in favor of impeachment for the motion to be upheld.

The court was initially scheduled to deliver its ruling on Feb. 3 but postponed it just two hours before the expected announcement after accepting Choi’s request for additional review. The court had previously held an oral argument session on Jan. 22, during which it had decided to conclude arguments.

On Dec. 31, Choi withheld Ma’s appointment, citing a “lack of bipartisan consensus,” while approving two other nominees recommended by each rival party. Woo filed a competence dispute case against Choi on Jan. 3, arguing that Choi's refusal to appoint Ma "infringed upon the National Assembly’s authority."

During Monday’s hearing, legal representatives for Woo and Choi focused on whether the procedure of filing the competence dispute case was legitimate, given that the Assembly speaker had filed it on behalf of the legislature without a parliamentary vote.

On Feb. 1, Choi’s representatives submitted a document arguing that the Constitutional Court’s review should be “revoked,” claiming Woo’s individual petition was “unlawful.”

The National Assembly’s legal team countered that the case could be filed without a plenary vote, as no clear regulations require one for competence dispute filings.

“There is no constitutional or legal basis for submitting the case to a plenary vote,” a lawyer representing the National Assembly said, adding that even if the case were tabled in a plenary session, it would not be valid due to the absence of procedural guidelines.

The National Assembly’s representatives also said that if necessary, they could pursue a parliamentary vote, but it would require “bipartisan agreement” and take at least two weeks to complete.

Meanwhile, Choi’s attorneys argued that a competence dispute case alleging a “violation of the National Assembly’s authority” must be filed through a plenary session. “Neither the Constitution nor the National Assembly Act grants the Assembly speaker the authority to file such a case unilaterally,” they said.

Article 49 of the Constitution states, “Except as otherwise provided for in the Constitution or in an Act, the attendance of a majority of the total members and the concurrent vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary for decisions of the National Assembly.”

Acting President Choi Sang-mok, left, and National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik shake hands during a plenary session at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Feb. 10. [YONHAP]

Justice Kim Hyung-du noted that there have been numerous civil complaints in which the National Assembly was the real plaintiff, even though the formal plaintiff was the state. However, Choi’s legal team argued, “Even if the National Assembly is the real party in interest, there is a difference between lawsuits where the state or another institution is formally listed as the plaintiff and cases where the National Assembly speaker files an impeachment trial in the name of the National Assembly.”

They further stressed that civil and administrative legal rights “differ from constitutional authority disputes.”

If the court rules Choi’s actions unconstitutional, he will be required to appoint Ma, completing the nine-justice bench.

Additionally, the Assembly speaker’s legal team submitted an official document sent by the conservative People Power Party (PPP) on Dec. 11 as evidence, which stated the party would participate in a confirmation hearing for the appointment of three Constitutional Court justices. Woo’s representatives argued that this indicated the PPP had already agreed to the appointment of all three justices, as they had recommended a candidate and provided a list of lawmakers to attend the hearing.

However, Choi’s attorneys rebutted that the document merely signified an agreement to discuss nominations, not an endorsement of all three appointments. They argued that the DP had “unilaterally” nominated an additional candidate despite their negotiations on each recommending one candidate.

Separately, the Seoul Central District Court is set to review the petition to cancel the arrest of Yoon, who has been indicted and detained for allegedly masterminding a martial law plot, on Feb. 10.

BY CHO JUNG-WOO [[email protected]]