The Democratic Party of Korea on the 20th officially announced six judicial reform agendas centered on increasing the number of Supreme Court justices and introducing a system for constitutional complaints against finalized judgments. The party leadership said it would introduce the proposal for a new system of complaints against judgments—which has drawn criticism as effectively creating a "fourth instance"—at the leadership level, while drawing a line by noting that it is not a "party platform bill." The cautious approach appears to reflect awareness of internal pushback and constitutional concerns. The Democratic Party aims to accelerate its judicial reform legislation with the goal of finishing during the regular session.
Jung Chung-rae, the Democratic Party leader, in the afternoon at the National Assembly formalized six judicial reform agendas debated by the party's special committee on judicial reform: ▲ increasing the number of Supreme Court justices ▲ expanding diversity on the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee ▲ improving the judge evaluation system ▲ expanding the scope of disclosure of lower court judgments ▲ introducing a pre-examination system for search-and-seizure warrants, and adding the introduction of complaints against judgments.
The special committee's plan to increase Supreme Court justices would raise the number from the current 14 to 26, adding 12 justices over three years by four per year starting one year after promulgation. If enacted, three years later the Supreme Court would operate with a total of 26 justices, and cases would be heard by six small panels and two combined panels, as well as two de facto full benches.
Special Committee Chairperson Baek Hye-ryeon explained, "It is a structure in which virtually all Supreme Court justices discuss and decide cases together, creating an institutional mechanism to enhance consistency and accountability in rulings, while also ensuring speed in appeals by establishing two full benches."
She dismissed criticism from some quarters that this is an attempt by the Lee Jae-myung administration to seize the judiciary. Chairperson Baek said, "A total of 22 Supreme Court justices will be appointed during President Lee Jae-myung's term, and the next president will also appoint the same 22. In other words, the current and next administrations will appoint Supreme Court justices equally, leaving no room to privatize or politically exploit the judiciary."
The bill to amend the Constitutional Court Act, centered on introducing complaints against judgments, targets finalized judgments and would allow constitutional complaints to be filed within 30 days after finalization. If the Constitutional Court accepts a petition, it would suspend the effect of the judgment and, if it upholds the petition, it would overturn the judgment and remand the case to the relevant court for rehearing. To prevent abuse, if the Constitutional Court finds the case unsuitable, a designated panel could summarily dismiss it.
Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Ki-pyo, who is the lead sponsor of the bill, said the judgments subject to constitutional complaints are those in which "a court ruling runs counter to the intent of a Constitutional Court decision, fails to follow due process prescribed by the Constitution and laws, or clearly violates the Constitution and laws to infringe on the people's basic rights." He added that the background of the bill is to "have the Constitutional Court review cases that infringe on basic rights, thereby eliminating blind spots in the protection of basic rights and robustly safeguarding people's substantive rights."
Unlike the five tasks being advanced as the special committee's plan, the introduction of complaints against judgments will be introduced as legislation led by Representative Kim, with the party leadership as co-sponsors.
Leader Jung said, "No matter how high the court may be, it is still an institution under the Constitution," adding, "A complaint against a judgment is necessary from the perspective of constitutional logic, guaranteeing the people's constitutional rights, and providing remedies for people's harm." He also said, "Since the bill will be introduced by the party leadership, we will follow the procedures to make it a party platform and do our best to pass it in the plenary session." Aiming at the judiciary, he criticized Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's "alleged interference in the presidential election," saying, "The collapse of public trust lies entirely with the judiciary."
A structure in which the party leader publicly declares a bill and introduces it in the name of the leadership generally carries the same political weight as a party platform. Leader Jung's remark that he would "follow procedures to make it a party platform" for introducing complaints against judgments is in the same vein.
However, the party drew a line for now by saying it is "not a party platform." Policy Committee Chairperson Han Jeong-ae said of introducing complaints against judgments, "We will not push it as a party platform," adding, "We believe there is ample room for revisions and additions through public discussion and process, and we aim to advance it to the point where it can be made a party platform through the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and other steps."
The issue of introducing complaints against judgments, which would open court rulings to review by the Constitutional Court, appears to have become burdensome as academia, the legal community, and the opposition have mounted strong resistance, and concerns have also emerged within the party.
Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act provides that "a person may file a constitutional complaint if his or her basic rights are infringed upon by the exercise or non-exercise of public power." However, because court adjudication is different in nature from the exercise of public power by the executive or legislative branches, it has been excluded from constitutional complaints until now. The legal community argues that if the Constitutional Court were to review court rulings again, it would effectively create a "fourth instance," potentially shaking the entire judicial system.
There is also an interpretation that, even as the party leadership takes the lead while postponing a party-platform push, it is adopting a dual-track strategy to keep a buffer in case criticism intensifies from opposition resistance, allowing it to say it is not a push for legislation at the party level.
The Supreme Court estimates that 1.4 trillion won would be needed for the construction of a new Supreme Court building and other costs if the Democratic Party's plan to increase the number of Supreme Court justices moves forward. On this, Chairperson Baek said, "We have not calculated the budget, but the amount presented by the Supreme Court is absolutely not it." Special Committee Secretary Lee Geon-tae criticized, "The key is increasing the number of justices. Saying it cannot be done because of the budget or official residences is an attempt to block the increase."
Meanwhile, the reform of the Supreme Court Justice Recommendation Committee would expand the number of commissioners from the current 10 to 12, exclude the head of the Court Administration Office, and include the Constitutional Court Secretary-General instead. It would also change from "one judge who is not a Supreme Court justice" to adding "two judges recommended by the National Judges Representative Conference (one of whom is a woman)" and "one lawyer recommended by a majority of local bar association presidents." The criteria for recommending justices would add a clause that "candidates should be diverse in gender, region, and experience," and commissioners would be specified as "people of learning and virtue with ample knowledge and experience in fields protecting human rights and the socially vulnerable." The chair would be chosen by mutual vote rather than by the chief justice's decision.
Regarding the judge evaluation system, evaluations by each local bar association recommended by the Korean Bar Association will be reflected in assessing judicial competence, and the composition of the judicial personnel committee will be decentralized from the existing "three judges" so that the National Judges Representative Conference and the conference of court presidents each recommend one member, dispersing the personnel power centered on the chief justice.
In addition, access and copying of first- and second-instance criminal judgments would be fully allowed, with an exception for pending cases where disclosure is likely to have a significant impact on the trial. It would apply retroactively to judgments delivered on or after Aug. 1, 2000. The special committee plan also includes introducing a pre-examination system for search and seizure so that a judge conducts an in-person examination before issuing a search warrant to prevent abuse of investigative powers.