The Constitutional Court will announce its decision on the dispute raised by the National Assembly regarding the suspension of the appointment of Constitutional Court Justice nominee Ma Eun-hyeok by Acting President Choi Sang-mok on the 27th.
According to the legal community on the 25th, the Constitutional Court has decided to hold a ruling session regarding the conflict of authority filed by National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik against Acting President Choi Sang-mok, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Strategy and Finance, at 10 a.m. on the 27th.
Acting President Choi suspended the appointment of the nominee last year on December 31, citing the lack of agreement between the ruling and opposition parties. In response, the National Assembly claimed that this infringed upon its right to select justices and the right to form the Constitutional Court, and filed for a ruling on the matter.
The Constitutional Court registered the case on the 3rd of last month and held the first hearing on the 22nd of last month without any preparatory procedures. The hearing was concluded after 1 hour and 20 minutes, and the ruling date was set for February 3 at 2 p.m. All requests for witness examinations related to 'the agreement between the ruling and opposition parties' submitted by Acting President Choi were dismissed.
However, it became a late controversy that Speaker Woo Won-sik filed the dispute on behalf of the National Assembly without going through a National Assembly resolution. Acting President Choi's team argued that 'Woo's unilateral request for a ruling is improper and should be dismissed' due to the omission of the National Assembly resolution process.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Court unexpectedly postponed the announcement of the decision just two hours before it was scheduled. Legal experts pointed out that 'the Constitutional Court effectively admitted that it was rushing the decision announcement without properly reviewing whether the litigation requirements were met' and noted that 'this is inappropriate behavior for the highest judicial institution.'