Chief Justice Nomination Debate Rages

As the debate over the nomination of Jeon Hyo-sook for chief of the Constitutional Court begins in the National Assembly, politicians and scholars are trying to decide whether the nomination violated the Constitution.

The question is whether it is all right to hire an ex-judge, who resigned before finishing her term, again as a judge and designate her as the Constitutional Court’s chief justice with a six-year term.

Nothing More to Debate?–

At first, President Roh appointed Jeon, who resigned from her post as a judge, as the court’s chief justice and requested the National Assembly’s confirmation.

When a debate over the appointment’s unconstitutional nature arose, he requested a hearing on the nomination. The ruling party is arguing that the president can appoint Jeon as a Constitutional Court’s judge since the deadline for the hearing is now past.

The Uri Party wants to process the confirmation bill in Wednesday’s National Assembly meeting, arguing that the issue of following proper procedures will be addressed by appointing Jeon as a judge.

However, the GNP is ready to make a protest petition, arguing that it is unconstitutional to re-appoint a public official who was urged to resign before finishing his or her designated term.

Most scholars of the Constitution think the nomination is questionable. They point out that the articles on state structure and authority should be interpreted rigorously, and that the principle of broad interpretation should apply to people’s basic rights.

Hongik University professor Han Su-ung said, “It infringes upon the next president’s right to appoint a judge. The appointment will violate the Constitution.”

The Constitution stipulates that the chief justice’s term of office is six years, so the president can appoint his designate as chief only once during his presidency. If the president makes a particular judge resign and appoints her as chief at the end of his presidency, the next president is deprived of his right.

Dongguk University professor Kim Sang-kyom stressed, “If the president is allowed to urge judges to resign and re-appoint them at the end of his presidency, it will influence the process of making judgments in trials since their term of office can be prolonged according to the president’s will. To prevent such abuse, a rigorous interpretation is necessary.”

Appointing Ex-judge Is Against the Constitution –

Kim also said, “The article on reappointment should be interpreted as applying to those who finished their term. If someone resigns before his or her term is over, he or she should not be allowed to be appointed as a judge again.”

Myongji University professor Heo Young pointed out, “There would have been no problem if Jeon did not resign. What is questionable is the president’s attempt to prolong Jeon’s term by urging her to resign and appointing her as a judge again. It was wrong from the beginning to try to prolong the term by twisting the procedures.”

Sungkyunkwan University professor Kim Hyung-sung said, “It goes against proper procedures to appoint Jeon again as a judge with a six-year term after she resigned before finishing her term.”

Sogang University professor Im Ji-bong said, “The debate arose in part because there is no clear stipulation in the Constitution, but to say the least, it is against the spirit of the Constitution. If someone is appointed by the President as a judge again after serving three years, the total term will become nine years. It goes against the stipulation that the chief justice’s term is six years.”

Scholars also point out that the Uri Party’s attempt to present the bill in the National Assembly using the chairman’s official authority may violate the Constitution.

Professor Heo said, “Article 9 of the Personnel Hearing Law stipulates that the chairman can present a bill when an investigation report is not taken up without a proper reason. However, it doesn’t apply in this case since there is a proper reason for not taking up an investigation report for the nomination.”

Professor Kim said, “Although there was a hearing on Jeon, it is arguable since it did not follow legal procedures. A debate on its unconstitutional nature may arise again.”

Some argue that the issue cannot be judged by legal standards.

Professor Im said, “There is a room for subjective interpretations since the stipulation is abstract.” Yonsei University professor Kim Jong-cheol argued, “The National Assembly is creating trouble and then handing it over to someone else instead of solving it. It should be addressed by the National Assembly since it has the right to interpret the Constitution.”

jkmas@donga.com tesomiom@donga.com