[Opinion] The Minority Opinion

Until now, rulings of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court state the number of the majority opinions, the names of the judges who expressed the views of the majority and the essential points of the minority opinion clearly. In cases with unanimous decisions, the ruling states, “This text was decided by the unanimous opinion of the total judges.” In majority decision cases, the ruling states: “This text was decided by the unanimous opinion of the total judges except the opinions from judges in opposition,” with their corresponding dissenting opinions attached.

The Constitutional Court only stated, “We decided according to the text,” and didn’t disclose minority opinion and the judges expressing it in the verdict. The Constitutional Court, exceptionally, explained the reason why it didn’t disclose the minority opinion at the end of the ruling. The Constitutional Court said that the conference should not be disclosed because of Clause 34, Article 1 of Constitutional Court law. The Constitutional Court also said that it could not disclose the minority opinion and the judges according to this clause. It said that there is an exceptional cause, but that Clause 36, Article 3 of the Constitutional Court law accepts this exception only about on decisions of unconstitutional law, a conflict of attribution and constitutional petitions, not impeachment decisions.

Is this statement right?

The Chief Judge said that he couldn’t disclose the minority opinion until he dies. It is not normal for the Constitutional Court to interpret Constitutional law so narrowly. There is no more terrible power than absolute power exercised in the name of the nation. Now the threatening throng stigmatizes the criticism into opposition in our society and may close the ruling of the Judge of the Constitutional Court.

It is a common principle of the world that the ruling of the Constitutional Court states the minority opinion. After time has passed, there was the history that the minority opinion was proven as the right one, and that the judges expressing the minority opinion could be adored as great dissenters. Our ancestors had the scholar’s spirit, speaking plainly to the king at the risk of his life. The Judge of the Constitutional Court also has this spirit and bravery. The judges of the Supreme Court also expressed the minority opinion under the military regime. our leaders may be lacking in spirit. It is uncertain whether our society is surrounded by a tense and violent atmosphere, not expressing the minority opinion, or if our leaders may be lacking in spirit.

Editorial writer Bae Kum-Ja baena@chol.com