[Opinion] `Covenant for Law Observance` That Didn`t See the Future

Do eyes of constitution adhere to the past, or open towards the future?

Does the constitutional judgment verify contents of the constitution, the oath for promising the previous decision, or blueprint towards the future?

On 25th April, the constitutional court of our nation sentenced decision, which was like remembering the promise of protecting `the past` rather than progressing to `the future`.

The request of `Covenant for law observance` as the condition for releasing so called ideological criminals on parole meant not to violate freedom of consciousness that the constitution secures.

It reminds me of `our oath` that all students used to shout in every morning assembly of `elementary school` in 1905`s.

“We are children of Korea, let`s keep the nation to death! ”.

Foreign lawyers evaluated that decision of the constitutional court, which is security organization of people`s basic rights, as anachronism thought that ignores the fact, as the world is being changed.

It meant that the decision is not suitable for the highest constitutional security organization in the nation, which held Olympics long time ago and is facing World cup as well as member nation of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

It is significant before considering it as somniloquoy of aliens who do not know the situation of separated nation.

Democracy is growing and economic level is quite good, however, decision of constitutional court that is fortress for securing human rights is not able to slough off dishonor as backward nation of human rights still.

Freedom of ideology is not regulated in our constitution.

It doesn`t mean that the constitution refuses freedom of ideology.

Freedom of ideology is clear basic factor of democracy.

Because the atmosphere that a word `ideology `causes violence and blood in modern history, which we suffered during procedure of settling democracy, we couldn`t put the word in the book of the constitution.

However, court and constitutional world analyze with one accord that freedom of ideology is included in freedom of consciousness which 19th article of constitutional law secures.

Consciousness called ideology is not the one which nation can force.

As anyone can possess different philosophy and religion from others, people can believe different ideologies too.

Even if it is in vain by standard of majority, we should respect it as long as the one believes in it seriously.

If we can`t respect, one should not press him at least.

Ethics and views of value of majority is settled down in the law and system

However, current ethics and view of value of majority can`t always have dominant position.

It could be the thing minority had a mind for in the past against major ideology and can fall down as ideology of minority again in future.

The reason why law and system of the majority should not press ideology of minority is because there is no absolute superiority in the world of ideology like that.

Covenant of law observance in question is direct descendant of `convert of ideology`.

Convert of ideology was the system that contributed to national security law to be branded as unique ill-law, which is criticized by the world democratic nations.

Government insists that covenant of law observance is different from convert of ideology.

Judges think that the promise `to keep the law ` is problem.

However, its reality doesn`t change by changing name or applying plastic surgery.

We can easily make out by seeing to whom this system is being applied to.

If it is natural covenant like that, why don`t they request it to every criminal?

Conceding hundred times, let`s regard covenant of law observance different from the past convert substantially and it is not ill-law to violate freedom of consciousness, which the constitution secures.

However, it is obvious that the system is not needed any more.

The time when the South and the North competed in regime similarly, has gone.

It is public fact that our system is much superior to the North, which doesn`t need any evidence.

The kernel of its comparison is that we have tolerance to the other ideologies.

Doesn`t Korea have composure as people question the kernel?

I give honor to philosophy and belief of constitutional judges who made a decision.

Nevertheless, I miss foreknowledge that can see the future and grasp the reality adequately at least.

A happy feature of a misfortune is the fact that two judges wrote objection based on minute logics.

We call development of history, when minor opinion rises up as major opinion in future.

As view and opinion, which is needed for progressing history is in existence; we can still have hope and expectation from constitutional court.

Ahn Gyeong-hwan (Prof.Seoul National University, Chairman of Korea Constitution Academy)