The decision on whether to exercise a veto over six contentious bills (Amendments to the National Assembly Act, the National Assembly Testimony and Appraisal Act, the Grain Management Act, the Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution and Price Stabilization Act, the Agricultural and Fishery Disaster Measures Act, and the Agricultural and Fishery Disaster Insurance Act), passed through the National Assembly led by the opposition party, is causing deep contemplation for Acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. Although exercising the veto seems to be the natural course of action considering the government's previously stated position, the situation of the impeachment politics makes the acting president's choice difficult.
In relevant ministries, there is talk that Acting President Han will convene an emergency cabinet meeting on the 19th to exercise the veto, but the official stance from the Prime Minister's Office is 'still under review.' The deadline for exercising the veto on the six contentious bills is the 21st.
Speaking with reporters from the Prime Minister's Office on the 18th, a senior government official mentioned, regarding the plan to convene an emergency cabinet meeting, 'No final decision has been made yet,' and added, 'We will inform you when a decision is reached.'
In relation to the decision on whether to exercise the veto on the six contentious bills, it was said, 'We will review until the last moment,' and 'We will assess what is appropriate for the future of the country and from the perspective of the people until the final moment in accordance with the constitution and the law.'
Regarding the possibility of consultation with the opposition, it was said, 'Explanations are being provided to the opposition standing committee members in each department,' and 'We will continue to communicate meticulously with the National Assembly to ensure there are no setbacks in all government tasks.'
Contrary to the cautious stance of the Prime Minister's Office, the responsible ministries see the exercise of the veto as a given. A representative from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which is in charge of four of the contentious bills such as the Grain Management Act (Grain Act) and the Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution and Price Stabilization Act (Agricultural Marketing Act), noted, 'The government's stance on these bills remains unchanged,' and remarked, 'The Grain Act and the Agricultural Marketing Act cause fiscal leaks and counteract market principles. They also contradict the direction of reforming the grain administration that the government has been pursuing so far.'
The special prosecution act for Kim Keon-hee and the sedition special prosecution act are also tasks that Acting President Han needs to address. Both special prosecution acts were sent to the government yesterday. If the government plans to exercise a veto, it must decide by Jan. 1 of the next year.
Within the Prime Minister's Office, there are reports that while rejecting the 'special prosecution act for Kim Keon-hee' as per the existing stance, consideration is being given to accepting the sedition special prosecution act as a strong possibility. Observers suggest that given Acting President Han is targeted as a subject of investigation in the sedition special prosecution act, there is no justification for Han to exercise the veto.
Regarding this, a senior government official mentioned, 'We will review until Dec. 31 to assess what aligns with the constitution and the law.'
Attention is also focused on whether a constitutional court judge will be appointed. The Constitutional Court, which needs to proceed with the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk-yeol, is currently operating with a six-member system, which is short of the constitutionally prescribed quorum. There is a divide in legal academia regarding whether a six-member constitutional court can decide on the removal of President Yoon.
Therefore, discussions are underway on the additional appointment of constitutional court judges. Given that President Yoon is in a 'suspension of duties' rather than a 'vacancy,' one logic asserts that the acting president cannot make appointments. In contrast, another argument posits that since all of the constitutional court judge candidates were recommended by the National Assembly, the acting president can make appointments within a passive exercise of authority.
Regarding this, a senior government official noted, 'Given the various interpretations and controversies, we need to listen to diverse opinions,' and added, 'I think various reviews need to be conducted. We will review further.'