Prompt selection needed for Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee

The motion to appoint Lee Kyun-yong as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has been rejected. Remarkably, this marks the second time a candidate for the Supreme Court Chief Justice position has faced rejection since candidate Jeong Gi-seung was rejected in 1988 during the Roh Tae-woo administration. The opposition Democratic Party and the Justice Party collaborated on a rejection strategy and proceeded with a vote. It is unfortunate that the opposition parties decided to take a stance on an issue that traditionally relies on lawmakers' autonomous votes, ultimately resulting in a leadership vacuum within the judiciary. Nevertheless, it is crucial to contemplate whether Lee Kyun-yong was the most suitable candidate for the esteemed Supreme Court Chief Justice role, a position demanding the highest moral standards among all public officials.

Candidate Lee failed to disclose unlisted stocks worth 1 billion won, owned by his family, in his public office asset reports for three consecutive years. Despite receiving 330 million won in stock dividends over a decade and paying taxes, these assets were not reported. The explanation that he, someone with extensive experience as a judge, didn’t know doesn’t seem plausible even if it were true. Furthermore, his son secured an internship at Kim & Chang Law Firm, the largest law firm in Korea, during his first year of college. While Lee claims not to have been involved in the internship process, it is essential that he avoids any appearance of impropriety or favoritism in this matter.

Lee’s primary focus has been on reforming the systems introduced during Chief Justice Kim Myeong-soo’s tenure, including the removal of the candidate recommendation system for the court’s leadership and the promotion structure for High Court presiding judges. The aim is to prevent the bureaucratization of judicial administration, which was the driving force behind these systems, and promote fairness and efficiency in legal proceedings. However, he has yet to propose a viable alternative plan. To expedite the handling of appellate cases, the key to their proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court justices by eight or more lies not only in the concept but in their capacity to gain the consensus of fellow court members.

The absence of the Supreme Court Chief Justice has rendered an en banc trial unattainable. The acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, typically assumed by a senior Supreme Court Justice, lacks the authority to appoint a successor to the Supreme Court Justice. Consequently, there are apprehensions that even divisional trials could face disruptions when Justices Ahn Cheol-sang and Min Yu-sook retire in January next year. This state of affairs within the Supreme Court is expected to result in delays in sequential rulings by lower courts as well.

The President’s Office should take a moment to consider its efforts to avert the current situation. At a time when cooperation with the opposition parties was paramount, the government appeared to engage in more confrontational interactions with them. In light of this, President Yoon Suk Yeol must promptly nominate a new candidate for the position who possesses impeccable moral integrity and the wisdom to build upon the strengths of past Supreme Court Chief Justices while addressing their shortcomings. It is equally crucial to acknowledge that political influence and the ability to engage in effective dialogue with the opposition party play vital roles in preventing the paralysis of the judiciary.