Democratic Party's 'Judicial Normalization TF' public hearing. Yonhap News

As the Democratic Party officially announced its policy on the 25th to abolish the Court Administration and establish a Judicial Administration Committee, concerns arose within the judiciary that it could be unconstitutional due to infringement on judicial independence.

The 'Judicial Administration Reform Plan' announced by the Democratic Party's 'Judicial Administration Normalization' Task Force (TF) at a legislative public hearing that day included the abolition of the Court Administration, which oversees the organization, budget, and personnel of the courts, and the establishment of a new Judicial Administration Committee.

The Judicial Administration Committee would consist of 13 members, with non-judges forming the majority. Two proposals were presented for the chairperson: one where the Chief Justice directly appoints the chairperson based on recommendations from external members, and another where the Chief Justice serves as the chairperson.

Lee Ji-young, Chief Prosecutor of Judicial Support at the Court Administration, who attended the public hearing that day, raised concerns about constitutionality based on her personal opinion.

Lee emphasized, "Article 101 of the Constitution, which states that judicial power belongs to courts composed of judges, includes judicial administration power within judicial power," and added, "Courts composed of judges must be able to independently decide key judicial administration matters without political or external interference."

She stated, "Judge appointments are an essential element of judicial administration directly linked to trial independence. If all authority over judge appointments is concentrated in a committee with a majority of non-judge members, it will be difficult to effectively block external attempts to influence trials through appointments."

She further stressed that this would increase the possibility of judges and trials being exposed to political influence, leading to chaos, and concluded, "In the process of emphasizing independence from within the judiciary, we must never allow a situation where independence from outside the judiciary is compromised."

Regarding the 'judicial manipulation' during the tenure of former Chief Justice Yang Seung-taik, which is cited as a reason for abolishing the Court Administration, she pointed out, "After the abuse of judicial administration power, the judiciary has continuously strived to improve its bureaucratic culture and closed judicial administration structure, and to ensure trial independence from within."

She added, "Eight years have passed since the abuse of judicial administration power. It is difficult to agree with the opinion that the Court Administration should be abolished due to concerns of abuse of judicial administration power, without sufficient consideration of the judiciary's efforts and results during this period."

Supreme Court. Yonhap News

Concerns were also raised among judges at the trial court level. A presiding judge at a court in the Seoul metropolitan area pointed out, "Ultimately, the intention is to weaken the Chief Justice's influence. Both judge appointment power and trial power are part of judicial power, and taking away these essential powers is unconstitutional."

Earlier, Chun Dae-yeop, Chief of the Court Administration (Justice of the Supreme Court), stated at a parliamentary audit last month, "A bill to abolish the Administration during Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su's tenure was submitted to the National Assembly, but ultimately there was no alternative. (The Supreme Court) submitted an opposing opinion stating that 'there is a fatal risk to judicial independence,' and it was eventually discarded by the National Assembly."

The TF's proposal to include 'election of court chief candidates' within the scope of deliberation and resolution of the Judges' Conference, an advisory body for judicial administration at all levels of courts, is also a point of contention.

This has been pointed out as similar to the court chief candidate recommendation system introduced during the tenure of former Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su. While it was promoted with the aim of decentralizing the Chief Justice's authority and strengthening the democracy of judicial administration, it faced criticism that judges became too focused on court chief elections or that it devolved into 'popularity contests' and 'people-pleasing,' leading to an inability to address urgent matters.

Consequently, it has been criticized that the delay in trials at lower courts has worsened because court chiefs, being mindful of the judges, could not foster an atmosphere that encouraged prompt trials or emphasized the resolution of pending cases as in the past. It has been suggested that the ripple effects of this are extending to Supreme Court trials.

Upon taking office, Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae abolished judge voting and reformed the system to appoint court chiefs by recommending candidates from a nationwide pool. Lee also pointed this out, stating, "When reintroducing the previous system, it is necessary to thoroughly analyze the circumstances under which improvements have been made, and the advantages and disadvantages of the past system."

Yonhap News