The Democratic Party of Korea decided to draw up a revision to the so-called "special tribunal for insurrection cases" bill it has pushed to try former President Yoon Suk-yeol's insurrection charges separately. The move follows criticism from the legal community, opposition parties, the presidential office, and broader pro-ruling-party circles that "if the party forces through legislation with potential constitutional flaws, the insurrection trial could be delayed." The party had aimed to pass it within the year, but the timetable could slip during the revision process.
◇ bill on special tribunal for insurrection cases that passed the judiciary committee gets rare airing in dp caucus
On the 8th, the Democratic Party held a policy caucus at the National Assembly and focused on what it calls "judicial reform bills," including the bill to create a special tribunal for insurrection cases. It is unusual for the ruling party to revisit in a caucus a bill that has already passed the National Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Even People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) and progressive-leaning scholars are flagging potential unconstitutionality in the bill to create a special tribunal for insurrection cases. On the 7th, the presidential office also said there is "a consensus to proceed within the bounds that minimize constitutional concerns."
At the Democratic Party caucus that day, views were voiced such as "Let's proceed only after sufficient review so that all constitutional concerns are removed" and "Is there any need to hand the other side a pretext amid the unconstitutionality debate?"
In particular, some warned that if the bill passes as is, a request for a constitutional review of the statute could be filed, potentially prolonging or nullifying the insurrection trial itself. One lawmaker said, "If the trial is prolonged, it will cause enormous confusion—who will bear that?"
Earlier the same day, Democratic Party leader Jung Chung-rae said at the supreme council meeting, "We will reinforce what needs to be reinforced to minimize constitutional concerns and boldly revise what should be revised." This marks a shift from the party's previous stance emphasizing a head-on push, saying "the special tribunal for insurrection cases is clearly a legislative matter for the National Assembly."
The National Judges Representative Conference also said that day that the bill to create a special tribunal for insurrection cases "could infringe on the independence of the judiciary," adding that "judges' views should be adequately reflected in the judicial reform debate."
The Democratic Party decided to determine at its next caucus whether to push a revision of the bill to create a special tribunal for insurrection cases. To that end, it reportedly asked a major law firm to review potential unconstitutionality.
◇ hard-line and moderate positions split on the contents of the revision
There are multiple ideas for what the revision to the bill on a special tribunal for insurrection cases should include. The legal community and opposition parties point to one provision as the biggest constitutional problem: "involvement of external bodies in appointing judges." Under the current plan, special tribunals for insurrection and treason cases would be established at the Seoul Central District Court and the Seoul High Court, with a nine-member recommendation committee—comprising figures recommended by the Constitutional Court Secretary-General, the Justice Minister, and the National Judges Representative Conference—proposing candidates for appointment by the chief justice. The Rebuilding Korea Party said, "It is clearly unconstitutional for the Justice Ministry to intervene in composing a bench that will handle a specific case." As a result, removing the Justice Ministry's quota from the recommendation committee is being floated as a possible element of the revision.
Conversely, there is a hard-line view to pair the effort with legislation that would block delays outright. A representative example is the amendment to the Constitutional Court Act led by National Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Choo Mi-ae. For insurrection and treason cases, it would keep criminal trials from being suspended even if a constitutional review of the statute is requested. The idea is to prevent suspension of the insurrection trial or delays in a verdict even if former President Yoon Suk-yeol's side requests a constitutional review and the bench accepts it. The Constitutional Court is said to have recently conveyed to the National Assembly that "there are constitutional concerns in interpretation" about this approach.
The Democratic Party plans to handle the related bills at plenary sessions on the 21st–22nd, but it cannot rule out a further delay. Floor spokesperson Kim Hyun-jung said, "Our plan to pass them within the year remains unchanged," adding, "We will discuss the timing through the caucus."