Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has formally notified the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee of his non-attendance at a pending issues inquiry scheduled for July 31, according to official filings submitted on July 28.
Chief Justice Rejects Summons
Chief Justice Cho stated in his written opinion that compelling the head of the judiciary to testify regarding the exercise of constitutionally independent recommendation authority violates the principle of separation of powers and judicial independence.
The Heart of the Standoff
Two main areas are in the crosshairs of the inquiry: Cho’s written proposals for naming Supreme Court justices, alongside sending a final appeal proceeding to the full bench involving former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min regarding accusations of carrying out essential insurrection duties.
Constitutional Arguments and Deliberations
According to the written opinion submitted to the committee, Chief Justice Cho emphasized that Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea ensures the separation of powers through mutual checks among constitutional institutions. The framework grants the Chief Justice the right to recommend judicial appointments, the National Assembly the right to approve appointments, and the President the authority to appoint.
“Having the National Assembly make [him] testify regarding the exercise of the Chief Justice’s constitutionally independent authority of recommendation runs counter to the separation of powers and judicial independence,” Chief Justice Cho stated in the opinion. He added that it is inappropriate to disclose specific appointment procedures and details regarding candidates’ personal backgrounds concerning appointments currently underway.
Judicial Independence and Statutory Limits
Addressing the full bench referral, Chief Justice Cho noted that testifying about the reasons for such judicial decisions violates Article 103 of the Constitution, which guarantees judicial independence.
Furthermore, he pointed to Article 65 of the Court Organization Act—which requires deliberations to remain private—along with Article 37 of the National Assembly Act, which outlines the scope of authority for the Legislation and Judiciary Committee.
Legislative Pushback and Legal Threats
Ruling party lawmakers strongly protested the non-attendance notice, labeling the judiciary’s refusal as arbitrary. Legislation and Judiciary Committee Chairperson Seo Young-kyo of the Democratic Party of Korea posted on social media that Chief Justice Cho has a strict legal obligation to attend under Article 2 of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal before the National Assembly, warning that lawmakers will hold him legally accountable.
Rep. Seo argued that refusing the pending issues inquiry under the guise of the separation of powers constitutes an abuse of authority, urging the Chief Justice to appear before the public and provide detailed answers.
Kim Seung-won, the ruling party’s secretary of the committee, echoed those sentiments on social media, questioning whether legislative verification of procedural flaws in the recommendation authority constitutes a breach of the separation of powers.
Escalating Institutional Clash
With the scheduled July 31 inquiry approaching, committee leaders have maintained that they will consider further legal measures if the Chief Justice fails to appear.
The conflict highlights an escalating institutional clash between the legislative branch and the nation’s highest court over the boundaries of constitutional oversight.
