Due legal course needed for hateful ex-president

Chun Doo-hwan, who had seized power through the December 12 military coup in 1979, went into exile to Baekdamsa Buddhist temple in Gangwon Province after Roh Tae-woo he supported was elected the president. It was a freezing winter day in November 1988. Chun and his wife stayed at the temple for two years and one month, while examining the trend of public opinions. Roh Tae-woo, then chairman of the ruling Democratic Justice Party who accepted constitutional amendment adopting election of the presidency through a public vote in June 1987, took power led by the conservative camp again, but it rather entailed severe ordeal on Chun. Despite deeply angered by Roh’s betrayal, he must have thought to himself that it was his atonement for his wrongdoings.

President Kim Young-sam, who took power as the candidate for the ruling Democratic Justice Party that he had fought against, put Chun and Roh to legal judgment at the pretext of efforts to correct history. The Supreme Court found Chun guilty of treason, rebellion, masterminding of crimes, and bribe-taking, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and 220 billion won (200 million U.S. dollars) in fines. In the final year of his presidency, former President Kim Young-sam released Chun at the request of then president-elect Kim Dae-jung, in his bid to resolve the political debacle that he had brought up.

President Kim Dae-jung himself did not raise issue with Chun and Roh. Punishing former presidents who had already been penalized again could be seen as political retaliation. As a president hailing from the Jeolla region, Kim might as well considered possible negative public sentiment arising from punishing the president hailing the Gyeongsang region. In his bid to win the Nobel Prize, he also needed to refrain from political retaliation. In the early days of his administration, President Roh Moo-hyun, who succeeded President Kim Dae-jung, accepted an independent council probe into the Kim administration’s secretive payments to North Korea, the Achilles tendon of the latter. If Roh punished Chun for the slush funds, he might have been burdened by criticism that he punished some but left another intact.

President Lee Myung-bak apparently did not want to put former President Chun, “history of the past,” to political controversy. President Park Geun-hye, however, strongly criticized former presidents who failed to take all possible measures to bring Chun to justice. The move seems to be in compliance with “reform of the rightists” led by Park, who does not pardon chaebol and take stern actions against the privileged for wrongdoings. The National Assembly enacted a “Special act on forfeiture of wealth from crimes by civil servants (Act on tracing and collection of Chun Doo-hwan’s wealth), while the prosecution launched a “special team to collect the fines on the Chun Doo-hwan family,” and is thoroughly tracing the family’s wealth. The presidential office has no reason to block the efforts because they help the administration regain support of the public, which has been in disarray. Critics say that President Park might have many regrets for Chun’s past acts.

A country cannot afford to cover up wrongdoings or turn a blind eye to corruptions just because the target in question is a former president. This writer has no intention whatsoever to help cover the acts of corruption committed by Chun, who seized power through a blood-shedding military coup, received and hided astronomical amounts of bribes from chaebol owners. Despite this, however, current “reform” is crossing the ambiguous boundary between politics and judicial justice. The National Assembly not only extended the statuary limitation of the case in order to trace the former president’s hidden slush funds, but also included in its targets for tracking wealth Chun’s relatives as well as his family members. In the course of legislation, main opposition Democratic Party lawmaker Park Beom-gye said, “The act on tracing and collection of Chun Doo-hwan’s wealth is a law targeting a specific figure and entails unconstitutionality on many grounds.” Other critics say that judging a crime from the past based on an act that has been enacted more than 20 years after the crime constitutes retrospective enactment. Considering that even an opposition lawmaker mentions violation of the Constitution, controversy will likely be highly intense if and when the case is bought to the Constitutional Court. Just because a president’s words and acts are hateful and the public have negative sentiment, punishing the president in a way that violates the Constitution should not be accepted. President Park’s words are important, but procedural justice is just as important.

Chun also has bright and dark sides and made achievements as well as faults. The December 12 military coup and brutal oppressions of the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement are perpetual burdens weighing on Chun. Economic development that was achieved during the boom era amid “three lows” in the 1980s under Chun served as foundation for the Korean economy that is now flourishing. Throughout his term in office, university campuses were filled with tear gas, and countless students were sent to prison. But the Constitutional amendment adopting election of president through direct public vote and single-term presidency were among achievements he made. The issue over Chun’s slush funds has become a political scope that goes beyond the realm of prosecution and the judicial system. His stay at Baekdamsa with his wife during freezing winter and being put to trials clad in prison uniform were highly political acts that went beyond the authority of the judicial system. The three former presidents’ decision to effectively leave Chun intact during their terms of 15 years was also based on political judgment. In the course of imposing judicial standards anew now, proper process in compliance with the Constitution and relevant laws should be followed. Even the hateful Chun Doo-hwan should not be an exception to this either.