The Blue House on the 31st said it "respects the legislative process of the National Assembly and its final decision" after a bill to amend the Criminal Procedure Act to completely abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority passed the plenary session.
Sung Ki-hong, senior secretary for public affairs at the Blue House, said, "This amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act will prevent the monopoly and abuse of power by separating investigation and indictment, while bringing the criminal justice system one step closer to the public by raising the level of protection for victims and human rights." He added, "The Blue House will do its best to ensure this amendment is implemented in the field without a hitch and that the public can feel the changes in their daily lives."
In the afternoon plenary session, the National Assembly passed the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act with 175 votes in favor, 2 against, and 1 abstention out of 178 lawmakers present. People Power Party lawmakers conducted a 24-hour filibuster (lawful obstruction of proceedings) from the previous day, then all walked out and did not take part in the vote. In the Democratic Party, Rep. Kwak Sang-eon was the only lawmaker to vote against it, and Rep. Lee So-young abstained.
◇ despite the president and the Minister urging restraint… ruling party pushes it through alone
The Criminal Procedure Act amendment that passed this time, in line with the Lee Jae-myung administration's prosecutorial reform principle of "complete separation of investigation and indictment," is centered on fundamentally blocking prosecutors' direct investigations. Prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority will also be abolished. Prosecutors can only "request" supplementary investigations from judicial police officers. Police must complete any supplementary investigation within one month and inform prosecutors of the results, and the supplementary investigation period can be extended by up to one month.
"Complete abolition of the supplementary investigation authority" has been an issue that split opinions even within the ruling camp. There is no clear way to make up for police investigations that fall short in serious crimes. Concerns were high that this would inevitably lead to public harm. On the 19th of last month, the president also said at a briefing on the results of a tour of Europe that "the debate over whether the supplementary investigation authority should survive is too sensitive and tainted." That meant the issue had become swayed by political gains and losses rather than the harm to the public.
In particular, spurred by the recent "Jang Yoon-gi case," the problem has emerged that if police intentionally cover up a case, it is difficult to uncover the truth at all. There is no mechanism to check police power. Various polls also showed high responses opposing the abolition of the supplementary investigation authority. However, the Democratic Party, led by its hard-line lawmakers, adopted "full abolition" as the party line and pushed it through the plenary session alone.
During internal discussions, Minister of Justice Jung Sung-ho even offered to resign. The reason was that "the task of separating investigation and indictment has been completed, so new wine should be put into new wineskins." In political circles, however, there was talk that Minister Jung, who had opposed complete abolition due to potential public harm, was trying to step down in line with his convictions. The Blue House, however, only said, "There was no official offer to resign."
◇ indictments from "serious" illegal investigations may be dismissed… concept is vague
The amendment also added "grounds on which a court may dismiss an indictment."
The current Criminal Procedure Act specifies that a court should render a dismissal of indictment when there is a problem with the procedure itself, such as when ▲ the court has no jurisdiction over the defendant ▲ the procedure for filing an indictment is invalid due to a violation of a statutory provision ▲ a case is re-prosecuted without important evidence after the indictment was withdrawn ▲ another indictment is filed for a case already indicted.
The Democratic Party added to this ▲ when an indictment is filed as a result of a "serious" illegal investigation ▲ when an indictment is filed by a remarkable departure from prosecutorial discretion. The opposition views this as an attempt to have the indictments in the president's trials dismissed. Terms such as "serious" in the provision are vague, and there is no clause excluding ongoing trials.