[Editorial] "Act of Ruling," Is Presumptive or Real?

The chief presidential secretary-designate, Moon Hee-sang, made a far-fetched argument for the allegations that Kim pressured Hyundai Merchant Marine to offer Pyongyang 400 billion won. According to his argument, if President Kim`s decision to bribe the North was made in his ruling over the country, it is beyond judicial judgment and therefore, it should be covered up. He even asserted that it is basic knowledge shown in an introduction to law. His argument doesn`t make sense at all.

In constitutional study, experts are equally divided over whether an act of ruling should be the subject of a legal trial. On which ground, is he arguing that it is basic knowledge? What country on earth is acknowledging extending a loan in an illegal way as an act of ruling? Generally speaking an act of ruling means a high level of political decisions such as motion for constitutional amendment or diplomatic acts. Moreover, the judgment of whether it constitutes an act of ruling is up to the judiciary.

Mr. Moon`s argument is fallacious, because he made a premise that he don`t believe President Kim bribed North Korea. Who other than the president can exercise sovereign power? The prospective power in the new government should not have made such irresponsible remarks about public suspicions.

His words that people in power and Cheong Wa Dae may know the truth sounds extraordinary. His words might be true given that after a long stay abroad, chairman of Hyundai Asan executive board Chung Mong-hun, a core player in the allegations, returned home right after the December presidential election, met with the defense minister and went to North Korea.

If so, the presidential office of Cheong Wa Dae should disclose the truth. If they know the real facts but do not lay bare them, it constitutes delinquency of their duty. Mr. Moon doubted that to get at the truth benefits the nation. Whether it benefits the nation or not should be discussed after the fact-finding is done. His intention to cover up the truth on the excuse of national interests is anachronistic. To make the decision of whether the fact-finding is good for national interest is not his job.

But he was right when he said that the incumbent government should come clean on the suspicions. But if the incumbent administration does not do the job, it will be passed on to the new government. There is no "finish" date for fact-finding.