Supreme Court Divided 8 to 5 over Private School Law

The Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling of unanimous consent on the Sangji University suggested the limits of the government’s supervision of private schools. Some experts say that the decision clearly showed the ideological propensities of the 13 justices of the Supreme Court.

The justices were divided over whether the Education Ministry’s decision to designate a provisional director should be viewed as invalid. An eight-justice majority ruled that it should be invalid, but the other five justices didn’t agree. Their disputes over the autonomy vs. publicity of private schools were reminiscent of a war of words between conservatives and progressives.

In particular, justices such as Kim Yeong-ran, Pak Si-hwan, Kim Ji-hyeong, and others once again joined the minority opinion following their previous ruling in February over a case involving the Ulsan North district’s labor union officials. Ever since the members of the current Supreme Court were appointed last July, the highest court has decided a total of 13 cases in agreement, of which only 2 cases distinctly revealed the ideological propensities of the justices.

In the two different cases, these five justices, who are classified as the court’s younger justice group, found themselves together again. They showed similar opinions in other rulings. Among those cases, the four judges, Kim Yeong-ran, Pak Si-hwan, Kim Ji-hyeong, and Jeon Su-ahn, showed the same opinions in all ten cases. Lee hong-hun showed the same opinion except once. For these reasons, they are jokingly referred to as “The five eagles of the Supreme Court.”

A judge on the Seoul high court said, “I think it is constructive that there are diverse opinions among the justices. The five members seem to be like-minded in all cases.” In both cases, the decisions were divided 8 to 5 as well. The fact that 7-6 or 8-5 decisions were handed down despite the goal of unanimous consent of the high court indicates how fierce their debates were.

The two rulings were followed by a series of majority, minority, and (again) majority opinions by the justices. They repeatedly argued against the other opinions, defending their own positions in public.

Usually, when the court is divided over a ruling, the justices can express their opinions, beginning from the lowest rank. Lee Yong-hun, the chief justice of the court, reveals his opinion in the end. Therefore, the rulings of 7-6 and 8-5 indicate the final intervention of the most senior justice at the end, with the other judges’ opinions divided almost evenly.

Court officials said, “The chief justice usually goes through other opinions and take his position to manage his authority and leadership among the other twelve judges.” The chief justice has with the majority in all 13 rulings by unanimous consent. The unanimous consent system includes all 13 justices, including the chief justice. This court resumes when the each division consisting of four members is not able to reach consensus when necessary to revise the existing laws, or when needed to declare the unconstitutionality of previous orders and rulings. A ruling by unanimous consent has been handed down by the Supreme Court only once in the last decade.”

woogija@donga.com