Posted September. 06, 2002 23:03,
On September 6, 2002, the congressional justice committee decided to subpoena Chief Supreme Court Justice Choi Jong-young and Chief Constitutional Court Justice Yoon Young-chul as material witnesses for congressional auditing on October 2 and on September 16, respectively. The committee, in the name of restoring the authority of Congress, made such decision.
In response, Supreme Court and Constitutional Court immediately issued statements and criticized, Congress has crossed the line. Its against the idea of checks and balances. How could Congress subpoena Chief Justice and Chief Constitutional Court Justice?
Grand National Partys Kim Yong-kun and Millennium Democratic Partys Ham Seung-hee, both on the committee, agreed, To restore the authority of Congress the Legislative body of this country, from this years congressional auditing, Chief Justice and Chief Constitutional Court Justice should appear in person before Congress. The agreement came at a meeting where the procedures for the auditing were being discussed. The committee will send official notices to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in the near future.
So far, the tradition has it that on behalf of the two Chief Justices, Supreme Courts administrative chief and Constitutional Courts secretary general appear before Congress and answer questions. Since the two institutions are not the objects of congressional auditing, the two Chief Justices as material witness appear shortly just for greetings during the congressional auditing.
One high-ranking official of the Supreme Court said, Its the tradition. I dont know why Congress, all of sudden, tries to change the tradition. We will response once our own opinions become harmonized.
In the meanwhile, the Constitutional Court members also held an emergency meeting, and tried to determine how they should react. One Court official railed, Why does Congress try to subpoena our Chief? Isnt it to involve itself in Courts decisions? All I can get is Congress is trying to compromise the integrity and independence of the Constitutional Court.