[Editorial] Who is Deranging the Constitutional Order of Politics?

In a Cabinet meeting, President Roh Moo-hyun said, “I cannot but feel anxious about constitutional disorder if the Constitutional Court insists on making the National Assembly’s legislative power incompetent.” Roh’s remarks were opposed to the principle of constitutional law that is aimed to control the abuse of power through the restraint and balance of the three governing powers: legislative, administrative, and judicial. The reason why the Constitutional Court is examining the National Assembly’s decision to see whether it followed constitutional law is based on the system for controlling excessive power of legislation.

“The Constitutional Court’s ruling damaged the National Assembly’s constitutional right,” said Roh. These remarks, however, come from a lack of understanding the fundamentals of constitutional law. The law has a number of systems that control power when the legislative power of the National Assembly goes beyond limits or public opinion is not fairly reflected. The president’s veto right on legislative bills or the Constitutional Court’s right to examine unconstitutional laws are examples. The Constitutional Court’s rejection of the special law of new capital relocation was also executed within the rights authorized for the court by constitutional law.

The judgments of the Constitutional Court are not directly voted on by the public. However, they represent the nation’s constitutional body in which constitutional law acknowledges democracy. Some politicians and scholars claim that Constitutional Court judges have “non-selected power.” But urging the breakup of the Constitutional Court would be dangerous enough to shake the basis of democracy.

Unconstitutional law judgment has a significance of protecting human rights and securing the rights of the minority. President Roh himself was once impeached by the two-third of the lawmakers in the National Assembly, but he recovered his presidency due to the decision of the Constitutional Court. Why didn’t he criticize then that the Constitutional Court’s ruling confused constitutional order and damaged the National Assembly.

President Roh said in an administrative policy speech that “he will not deny the Constitutional Court’s ruling.” However, that is quite doubtful since he now has changed his stance and blames the Constitutional Court. Isn’t it to suppress the Constitutional Court, considering the unconstitutional claim on the four major bills? What really deranges constitutional order is that the majority power of the National Assembly repeatedly makes withering remarks over the Constitutional Court’s function. The purpose of the Constitutional Court’s existence is to protect democracy and people’s rights from the abuse of legislative and administrative rights.