Home > Opinion > Editorials

Can the judiciary stay independent if outsiders control judges appointments?

Published: 26 Nov. 2025, 00:00

Jeon Hyun-heui, head of the Democratic Party’s task force on restoring trust in the judiciary and normalizing court administration, speaks during a public hearing at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Nov. 25. [YONHAP]

The Democratic Party (DP) unveiled its judicial reform proposal at a public hearing on Tuesday. The plan, drafted by the party’s task force on restoring trust in the judiciary and normalizing the bureaucracy, calls for abolishing the National Court Administration, creating a Judicial Administration Committee, strengthening disciplinary rules for judges, limiting retired Supreme Court justices from involvement in cases related to top court rulings for five years and giving more authority to Korea's plenary gathering of judges.

The party aims to pass its reform bill before the end of the year. The most contentious element is the proposal to replace the National Court Administration with a new committee responsible for personnel decisions. Under the draft, nine of the 13 committee members would be nonjudges, and sitting judges would be excluded from the positions of standing members, secretary general and deputy. This raises doubts about whether partial members who meet once a month can credibly manage complex personnel matters within the judiciary.

The risks are not theoretical. A particular group backed by political influence could dominate the committee. Such a structure would make it easier for outside pressure to shape judicial appointments and, ultimately, affect verdicts. The prosecution offers a cautionary example: Every change of administration brings sweeping reshuffles, often pushing prosecutors aligned with the previous government into marginal positions. There is no guarantee similar patterns would not emerge within the courts, producing “political judges” in the same way critics argue “political prosecutors” have been created. The judiciary’s role is fundamentally different from that of elected branches. Judges must make principled decisions based on the Constitution and the law, even when those decisions are unpopular.

The DP has also revived its proposal for a special tribunal dedicated to insurrection cases. Floor leader Kim Byung-ki said on Monday that such a tribunal must be established and called it “the will of the people.” Yet the idea lacks constitutional grounding and violates the principle of random case assignment. Trials involving former President Yoon Suk Yeol and others on insurrection charges are already being broadcast with court approval, allowing the public to follow proceedings. In this context, the DP's suggestions imply distrust in the judiciary and step outside constitutional boundaries.

The judiciary must reflect on why public trust has eroded. Political polarization will only intensify pressure on courts. To withstand that pressure, the judiciary must restore confidence through its own reforms: reducing trial delays, improving the reliability of rulings, blocking preferential treatment for former judges and strengthening disciplinary measures for misconduct. Oversight of the judiciary is necessary, but reforms pursued in haste or in ways that subject courts to political power threaten the very independence they seek to protect.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.