Rep. Jang Dong-hyuk of the People Power Party holds up "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek while participating in an unlimited debate at a National Assembly extraordinary session on December 23rd, concerning the December 12 coup d'état and the special act on the establishment of a dedicated court and protection of whistleblowers. Yonhap News

An unlimited debate (filibuster) by Jang Dong-hyuk, leader of the People Power Party, opposing the establishment of a special court for insurrection, concluded on December 23rd after exceeding 24 hours in the National Assembly. This marks the first time a leader of the main opposition party has personally engaged in unlimited debate, setting a new record for the longest filibuster in parliamentary history.

The filibuster began on December 22nd at 11:38 AM when the bill was brought to the plenary session. Rep. Jang spoke continuously until the morning of the 23rd without a break, focusing his arguments on the core issue that the "establishment of a separate court for a specific case" itself violates the constitutional order.

During the debate, Rep. Jang stated, "Regardless of its name, a special court is unconstitutional." He added, "In a democratic country, a structure where legislative and political power intervenes in the formation of a court fundamentally shakes the independence of the judiciary." He further questioned, "If the accusation of insurrection is legitimate, why is a special court necessary?" thereby highlighting that the bill is being pushed for political purposes.

The People Power Party has characterized this filibuster as a "last legitimate resistance" against the majority party's forceful passage of legislation. In practice, Rep. Jang utilized the full 24 hours, which were scheduled for forced termination, to focus on drawing public attention and appealed to his fellow lawmakers during the debate, saying, "Please remember the names of the lawmakers who voted in favor of this bill."

The conservative camp views this matter not simply as a procedural issue but as a critical turning point for the constitutional order. This is due to concerns that if a precedent is set for establishing courts targeting specific cases, political powers may demand "tailored judicial structures" for every unfavorable situation in the future. This is leading to criticism that it could undermine the principle of separation of powers and the foundation of the rule of law.

While Rep. Jang's 24-hour filibuster did not ultimately prevent the bill's passage, it is being evaluated as having significant political and symbolic meaning, as the leader of the main opposition party personally took a stand to raise constitutional controversy. Attention is being drawn to how this issue will serve as a benchmark in future constitutional debates and discussions on the judicial system.

By Jung Woo-seok