A court has suspended the effect of the People Power Party's one-year suspension of party membership imposed on lawmaker Bae Hyun-jin. The outcome defied expectations that the court would not intervene in party affairs. Political circles are reacting by calling it an "unprecedented move."
The Seoul Southern District Court civil division 51 (Presiding Judge Kwon Seong-su) on the 5th granted Bae's request for an injunction to suspend the disciplinary effect, saying there was a "serious defect in the People Power Party Central Ethics Committee's decision," and ordered the suspension. With the disciplinary effect halted, Bae will return as the People Power Party's Seoul chapter chair. The party says it will consider an objection, but under the leadership of Jang Dong-hyeok, the legitimacy of the Ethics Committee, which has wielded the knife, has been severely undermined.
◇ Delivery of the belated request for explanation… arrived only on the day the disciplinary panel convened
According to the court's decision obtained by ChosunBiz, the bench saw three major problems with the disciplinary action. First was a procedural issue. The People Power Party Ethics Committee sent, via Telegram on Feb. 6, a request for Bae to explain the grounds for discipline to the Seoul chapter Secretary-General. At the same time, at 5:56 p.m. that day, it also asked the post office to deliver the request.
Feb. 6 was a Friday, so the actual mailing took place on Monday, Feb. 9. The request sent via the post office was delivered to Bae on Feb. 11. The committee's deadline for written submission was 3 p.m. on Feb. 10, and the disciplinary committee met on Feb. 11. The request for explanation was delivered only as the disciplinary committee was in session.
The court found that merely sending the request for explanation to the chapter Secretary-General via Telegram did not satisfy Article 15 of the Ethics Committee rules requiring "written notice." The bench said, "The disciplinary process proceeded without even complying with the lawful procedures set by the debtor (People Power Party) itself," adding, "This invites doubt as to whether the debtor conducted a thorough deliberation before imposing discipline."
◇ Grounds for heavy discipline—"child rights violation and defamation"—both not recognized
The court also did not accept the Ethics Committee's claim of defamation of a child as grounds for the heavy penalty of a one-year suspension of party membership. Bae posted on social media a family photo of a private citizen who had written a comment critical of Bae, and the Ethics Committee argued that Bae defamed the minor in the photo and violated the child's rights.
But the court reached a different conclusion. It found that the child's photo had already been posted on the commenter's profile and was publicly accessible to an unspecified number of people, so it was inappropriate to expand the act into a finding that Bae disclosed the child's photo without consent and impose discipline. The committee also claimed Bae allowed the minor to become the target of malicious comments, but the court found the committee failed to show that there were direct malicious comments targeting the child.
The committee cited a case where posting a pixelated photo of a child who stole from a store was found to be defamation of the child and disciplined Bae on that basis, but the court did not accept this either. It determined that Bae's act criticized the commenter's behavior, not the child.
The court also focused on an opinion submitted on the 4th by the Ethics Committee vice chair. In the opinion, the vice chair said, "In the course of disciplinary deliberations, we determined that the creditor's (Bae's) conduct in this case could constitute defamation or insult of the commenter in this case (not the child in this case)." In imposing discipline, they called it defamation of the child, but in the opinion they said it was defamation of the commenter, not the child.
On this, the court also noted, "In light of the Central Ethics Committee vice chair's opinion, it is questionable whether, at the time of the disciplinary resolution in this case, there was sufficient discussion on whose reputation was allegedly defamed."
◇ Disciplinary politics halted… junior lawmakers and pro-Han camp counterattack, calling for the ethics chair's resignation
The People Power Party Ethics Committee has served as the spearhead against the pro-Han camp, including expelling former leader Han Dong-hoon, disciplining former Supreme Council member Kim Jong-hyuk, and disciplining lawmaker Bae Hyun-jin. Party Audit Committee Chair Lee Ho-seon and Ethics Committee Chair Yoon Min-woo, both appointed directly by leader Jang Dong-hyeok, led these moves. Disciplinary cases against constituency chairs who urged Jang to resign and against eight lawmakers who visited Daegu with the former leader are also before the Ethics Committee.
But with the court unusually putting the brakes on the Ethics Committee's decision, red lights have come on for Jang's disciplinary politics. Pro-Han and junior lawmakers are now launching fierce attacks on the Ethics Committee.
Lawmaker Kim Jae-seop wrote on Facebook in the morning, "The ethics chair has acted as the ruling faction's attack dog, leading the charge to eliminate rivals," adding, "The ethics chair, who damaged the party's reputation with unlawful discipline, should step down immediately." Kim said, "The court's decision that the committee's discipline was plainly illegal, beyond the bounds of the Constitution and the law, clearly shows how arbitrarily and biasedly the committee has abused its authority."
Lawmaker Cho Eun-hee of "Alternatives and Future" also said, "This incident shows the Ethics Committee has been operated arbitrarily and in a biased manner, beyond the bounds of the Constitution and the law," adding, "If the committee represents the intentions of a particular faction or degenerates into a tool to purge rivals, what citizen or party member would trust its authority?"
Pro-Han lawmaker Park Jeong-hoon also posted an article titled "Dismiss Chair Yoon," saying, "Of course the ethics chair should be dismissed, but leader Jang remains silent."
Bae, the person involved, appeared on SBS radio that day and said, "Even if Jang had ten mouths, would there be anything to say now?" adding, "It seems he is running the party with the idea that if he uses the Ethics Committee apparatus to purge those whose line does not match his own, he will have a future."