No one should be the judge in their own case

Home > Opinion > Columns

No one should be the judge in their own case

Published: 05 May. 2025, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lee Ha-kyung

The author is a senior columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo.

In the ancient Uyghur civilization, law was revered. Legal codes were considered sacred scripture, and their religion, Manichaeism, described God as “the king of all laws.” Modern Korea, in its own way, is no less devoted to the rule of law. The fragile democracy transplanted from the United States after Korea’s liberation 80 years ago has been repeatedly tested but ultimately strengthened through the enforcement of constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul [YONHAP]

When presidents abused their power or clung to delusions of martial law, the nation did not descend into chaos. Instead, it adhered to constitutional impeachment procedures, removed the offenders from office and restored democratic governance. It was the law — not political expediency — that carried Korea through crises. By this standard, the country has become a model for constitutional resilience.

In this context, the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the acquittal of Democratic Party (DP) presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law should be respected. The court ordered a retrial, signaling that it found merit in the claim that Lee had knowingly made false statements during a campaign. Yet the DP has responded with outrage, calling the decision a “judicial coup” and preparing to impeach Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de.

Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae prepares to deliver the Supreme Court’s ruling on Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung’s appeal in a public election law violation case at the Supreme Court courtroom in southern Seoul on May 1. [NEWS1]

The party is also pushing legislative revisions aimed at Lee’s benefit: deleting the clause on false information in the election law, and amending the criminal procedure law in a way that could suspend five ongoing trials against Lee if he wins the presidency. These efforts, tailored to shield one individual, run counter to the principle of the rule of law. As English jurist Edward Coke articulated in the 17th century, no one should be a judge in their own case. The DP risks violating this foundational tenet.

The Seoul High Court is now expected to issue a verdict before the June 3 presidential election. Lee will likely appeal again, facing voters under a legal cloud. Nevertheless, he remains the front-runner. For many, the upcoming election is a referendum on the constitutional crisis caused by former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s aborted martial law attempt, and an opportunity to restore democratic norms. The People Power Party, having nominated former Labor Minister Kim Moon-soo as its candidate, continues to focus solely on opposing Lee without distancing itself from Yoon’s legacy — an approach that may alienate moderate voters.

Justices sit at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on May 1. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

An alternative scenario could see former acting President Han Duck-soo emerge as a unifying figure. His proposal for a constitutional amendment to shorten the presidential term and form a coalition government may appeal to centrists and disrupt the current two-way race.

If Lee wins, Article 84 of the Constitution — which states that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted except for treason or rebellion — will become a critical battleground. The Constitutional Court will be tasked with deciding whether a president can be removed from office based on older, unrelated statements that the Supreme Court deemed criminal. The Court will also weigh the national cost of holding two presidential elections in quick succession. Lee must cooperate fully with judicial proceedings and pledge to accept the outcome, whatever it may be. That is his constitutional duty, especially as someone who once led the charge for Yoon’s impeachment. To insist on changing the law to evade punishment is to claim privilege, in direct violation of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which prohibits the creation of privileged classes.

That said, the judiciary is not without fault. The first trial dragged on for over two years. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal just months before the election, raising eyebrows about the timing and deliberative rigor. Critics wonder whether the justices thoroughly reviewed the 60,000 pages of case documents in the brief nine days between the trial and ruling. The vote split sharply along political lines: 10 justices appointed by Yoon voted for conviction, while two appointed by former President Moon Jae-in dissented.

Still, undermining the judiciary with institutional brinkmanship would be an even greater mistake. Some reports suggest the DP might attempt to neutralize the acting president’s veto by impeaching enough Cabinet members to reduce the quorum below the required 11 out of 14 ministers. Such actions would cripple the government. The party appears gripped by a “fortress mentality,” believing that any act, however extreme, is justified in the name of its own version of justice. That path mirrors the self-destructive course of Yoon’s administration, which collapsed under the weight of its own overreach.

Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung speaks during the DP Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on April 28. [NEWS1]

History offers a cautionary tale. During the 2000 U.S. presidential election, Florida’s ballot recount dragged on for weeks, causing national turmoil. When the Supreme Court ordered a halt to the recount, Democratic candidate Al Gore accepted the ruling despite believing it unjust, thereby preserving national unity. That decision demonstrated the strength of a nation committed to the rule of law — even in loss.

Korea’s DP must show similar restraint and maturity. The president is the guardian of the Constitution. A candidate leading the race should uphold the law with the same reverence the ancient Uyghurs reserved for their sacred texts. That attitude will matter deeply in the Constitutional Court’s forthcoming ruling on presidential immunity. If Lee attempts to nullify his conviction through retroactive legislation, impeaches judges or disables the Cabinet, the Court may view these actions unfavorably.

No one should be the judge in their own case. That principle must remain intact — regardless of who is running for president.

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