Chief Justice Jo Hee-de Boycotts Hearing to Protect Judicial Independence

Judicial Officials Refuse to Attend National Assembly Hearing

Several high-ranking judicial officials, including Chief Justice Jo Hee-de, have opted not to attend a hearing organized by the National Assembly regarding allegations of interference in the chief justice election process. The hearing, led by the Democratic Party of Korea, aims to investigate claims that the Supreme Court may have influenced the outcome of the election. According to reports from the National Assembly and the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Jo and five other justices who received summonses submitted written explanations for their absence on the 26th.

In his written statement, Chief Justice Jo emphasized that the hearing pertains to a ruling made by the Supreme Court in May and requires an explanation of deliberation processes for an ongoing trial. He argued that this request contradicts several key legal provisions, including Article 103 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which guarantees judicial independence; Article 65 of the Court Organization Act, which mandates the confidentiality of deliberations; and Article 8 of the National Assembly Audit Act, which limits investigations into ongoing trials. Additionally, he referenced Article 37 of the National Assembly Act, stating that as someone bound by the Constitution and laws, he could not attend the hearing.

The National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee passed a resolution on the 22nd to proceed with the “Chief Justice Hearing.” The plan designated Chief Justice Jo, along with National Court Administration head Chun Dae-yup, Justices Oh Kyung-mi, Lee Heung-koo, Lee Sook-yeon, Park Young-jae, and Presiding Judge Jee Kui-youn of the Seoul Central District Court as witnesses. The hearing was pushed forward by the Democratic Party and the Rebuilding Korea Party, despite the People Power Party’s decision to walk out. The allegations suggest that Chief Justice Jo violated procedural and legal norms by issuing an unreasonable ruling related to a specific candidate’s (President Lee Jae-myung) trial ahead of the presidential election. There are also suspicions that he undermined judicial independence and political neutrality by allegedly conspiring in advance through a “four-person meeting” with Han Duck-soo and others.

Chief Justice Jo appears to have determined that attending the hearing while the retrial of President Lee’s case is ongoing at the Seoul High Court could infringe upon judicial independence and violate the intent of relevant laws. Article 65 of the Court Organization Act states that “deliberations must not be disclosed,” and Article 8 of the National Assembly Audit Act stipulates that “audit and investigation authorities should not be exercised with the intent to interfere in ongoing trials or investigations.”

Justice Oh Kyung-mi also provided her own written opinion, stating that as a sitting judge, she has already expressed her legal views on cases she was involved in through court rulings. She added that it would be inappropriate to publicly discuss the circumstances or reasoning behind those rulings, as they pertain to the judiciary’s exclusive judicial affairs.

Typically, only the head of the National Court Administration and administrative staff not involved in trials attend National Assembly audits or issue inquiries, while chief justices, justices, and research judges do not. However, the Democratic Party has taken a firm stance on the matter. Kim Yong-min, a Democratic Party lawmaker and the ruling party floor leader of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, stated during an interview on MBC Radio’s “Kim Jong-bae’s Focus” on the 26th that if Chief Justice Jo refuses to attend, the party could reissue a witness summons, file a criminal complaint for non-attendance, or consider conducting an on-site inspection at the Supreme Court.

This situation highlights the growing tension between the legislative and judicial branches of government, raising important questions about the balance of power and the interpretation of legal provisions that protect judicial independence. As the debate continues, the implications for the integrity of the judicial system and the separation of powers remain significant.