Home > Opinion > Columns

The toughest job: Constitutional Court justice

Published: 28 Feb. 2025, 00:02

Kang Joo-an

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

For many judges, the ultimate aspiration is to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court or Constitutional Court. Even within the judiciary, where the brightest legal minds converge, only those in the elite ranks can realistically dream of these positions. The Supreme Court may seem like the pinnacle, given that the chief justice appoints three Constitutional Court justices. However, public attention often gravitates more toward the Constitutional Court, which has ruled on landmark cases, from presidential impeachments to climate change litigation.

Police stand on guard outside the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 26. [YONHAP]

Supreme Court justices are buried in an avalanche of cases. In 2023 alone, the Supreme Court received 37,669 petitions. Former Justice Kim Young-ran once likened the court to a monastery or a temple, emphasizing its isolating workload. In contrast, the Constitutional Court, which received 2,522 petitions last year, allows its nine justices to exercise greater discretion and focus. Yet, what once seemed a comparatively privileged role has now become one of the most perilous professions in Korea, thanks to the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Justices have been assigned police security, and some have been personally targeted with threats outside their homes, with protesters calling for direct attacks.

Those opposed to impeachment have been scrutinizing the justices' ideological leanings. Of the current eight justices, two were appointed by former President Moon Jae-in, two by former Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su, and one by the Democratic Party. With the impending confirmation of nominee Ma Eun-hyeok, hostilities against the court are expected to intensify.

At impeachment protests, history instructor Jeon Han-gil labeled five justices modern-day “Eulsa Five Traitors.” But have these justices truly ruled along ideological lines? A closer examination of their rulings suggests otherwise. Justice Lee Mi-sun, appointed by Moon, dissented in the impeachment case against former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min last July, arguing that while his actions violated the National Civil Service Act, they were not severe enough to warrant removal from office. Effectively, she ruled in favor of Yoon’s high school alumnus.

Similarly, Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae, often accused by the ruling party of being close to opposition leader Lee Jae-myung, dissented in the impeachment case against prosecutor Lee Jung-seop, who was involved in investigations against Lee Jae-myung. Moon acknowledged Lee had violated civil service regulations but concluded that his actions did not justify removal. If ideological loyalty dictated their rulings, shouldn’t the Democratic Party be the one outraged?

Even among Yoon’s own appointees, ideological predictability is far from certain. Justice Jeong Hyeong-sik joined Justices Moon and Lee in a 5-4 ruling last August, declaring the government’s greenhouse gas reduction targets unconstitutional. Despite potential corporate ramifications, he aligned with Moon-appointed justices.

Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae, left, enters the Constitutional Court's main chamber on Feb. 27, followed by Justice Kim Hyung-du. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Former Constitutional Court Justice and current Chair of the National Human Rights Commission Ahn Chang-ho once provided a clear response to concerns about judicial bias. Ahn, who was appointed to the court by the ruling party’s predecessor, was at the center of the 2017 impeachment trial of former President Park Geun-hye. In a 2018 interview with the JoongAng Ilbo, he explained the urgency behind that ruling.

“Chief Justice Park Han-chul pushed for an expedited ruling because all of the justices agreed that it was critical to resolve the constitutional crisis as swiftly as possible," Ahn said. "The presidency had been suspended, and the prime minister was acting as head of state. Our decision was reached after careful consideration of what was best for the nation and its people.”

For those who remain skeptical of judicial integrity, Ahn had another pointed response.

“Constitutional adjudication is not about left or right, progressivism or conservatism. It is about life. The primary concern is how a ruling will impact the people and the country. Each case must be decided based on conscience and conviction.”

If impeachment opponents genuinely believe Yoon’s claim that the martial law declaration was merely a “two-hour public appeal,” then perhaps they should stop threatening the justices and start trusting Ahn’s words.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.