Democratic Party’s legal revisions undermine rule of law

Home > Opinion > Editorials

Democratic Party’s legal revisions undermine rule of law

Published: 08 May. 2025, 00:00

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lawmakers of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee hold a committee meeting on April 9. [KIM SUNG-RYONG]

The Democratic Party pushed through an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act in the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that would suspend all criminal trials for a president-elect until the end of their term. The clause mandates that “when a defendant is elected president, the court shall suspend trial proceedings by decision from the date of election until the end of the presidential term.”

The move has drawn sharp criticism for its apparent attempt to preempt judicial review and protect Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, who is currently on trial in multiple criminal cases. Article 84 of the Constitution stipulates that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted during their term, except in cases of insurrection or treason. However, the article does not clarify whether this immunity extends to ongoing trials that began before taking office. Such constitutional interpretation is reserved for the Constitutional Court — not the legislature. By attempting to resolve this ambiguity through legislation, the Democratic Party is overstepping its authority and risking abuse of legislative power.

The party also rushed a separate amendment through the Public Administration and Security Committee that alters key language in the Public Official Election Act. The revision removes the term “act” from the clause defining the crime of making false statements during an election campaign. This change appears tailored to nullify the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which found that Lee made false claims about the controversial Baekhyeon-dong land development project. The case was returned to the Seoul High Court with a guilty verdict implied. If the amendment passes, it could invalidate the legal basis for prosecuting Lee, allowing him to escape accountability through retroactive legal revision.

These changes amount to a form of legislation for an individual—laws crafted not for the public good, but to protect a particular politician. It is a tactic not unfamiliar to Korean politics, but rarely has it been pursued with such blatant timing and purpose. In the past, presidential vetoes stood in the way of such self-serving measures. But if Lee wins the June 3 election, these amendments could take immediate effect. For a governing party to rewrite laws mid-trial in favor of its candidate represents a profound challenge to democratic norms and an open affront to the rule of law.

The motivations may go beyond electoral victory. If Lee’s conviction — currently under retrial — results in a fine exceeding 1 million won, the Democratic Party would be required to return 43.4 billion won in public campaign subsidies, as stipulated by current election law. Seen in that light, the party’s push to revise the law could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid financial liability, in direct contradiction to the Public Service Ethics Act, which prohibits public officials from using office for personal gain.

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

The Democratic Party’s actions have not stopped at legal revisions. It has announced plans to summon all 12 justices of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, for a legislative hearing to examine what it calls “judicial interference in the presidential election.” No such demand was made even during Korea’s authoritarian eras. Calling the entire bench of the Supreme Court before lawmakers cannot be viewed as anything other than political intimidation. It suggests an intention to bring the judiciary under political control — completing a trifecta of dominance over the executive, legislative and now judicial branches.

The rule of law is not a political instrument to be bent at will. The separation of powers exists to prevent any one branch of government from accumulating unchecked authority. When lawmakers tailor legal codes to shield their candidate from the consequences of judicial rulings, democracy is not being served — it is being undermined.

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