The Constitutional Court ruled that the acting president and Minister of Strategy and Finance Choi Sang-mok's decision to withhold the appointment of candidate Ma Eun-hyeok violated the National Assembly's 'Constitutional Court composition rights.' However, the Constitutional Court decided that it could not issue a ruling mandating the acting president to immediately appoint candidate Ma as a judge.
On the 27th, the Constitutional Court held a hearing on the National Assembly and the president's disputes over authority, with National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik presenting the case against acting president Choi. The court noted, "The acting president's failure to appoint candidate Ma, elected by the National Assembly on Dec. 26 last year, appears to infringe upon the National Assembly's authority to select judges, thus recognizing the part of the authority infringement claim." This decision was reached unanimously by all judges.
However, the Constitutional Court stated, "It dismisses the part regarding confirmation of status requesting that candidate Ma be appointed as a Constitutional Court judge, as it concluded that this matter could not be subject to a dispute over authority."
Earlier, the National Assembly elected candidates Jeong Gye-seon, Ma Eun-hyeok, and Jo Han-chang last December. However, the acting president only appointed candidates Jo and Jeong, citing a lack of bipartisan agreement as a reason to withhold the appointment of candidate Ma. National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik submitted a complaint on behalf of the National Assembly, claiming that the acting president infringed upon the authority of the National Assembly.
The case involved two main issues. Firstly, whether the acting president's act of not appointing the judge candidates elected by the National Assembly constituted a failure to perform a 'legally obligated act.' Additionally, there was controversy regarding whether Speaker Woo's filing of this complaint without a resolution from the National Assembly's plenary session was improper.
On that day, the Constitutional Court ruled, "The right of the National Assembly to elect three judges is independent and substantive regarding the composition of the Constitutional Court, and the president cannot arbitrarily reject or selectively appoint someone elected by the National Assembly." However, it added, "Appointment can only be withheld and a re-election demanded if a person elected as a judge does not meet the qualifications defined in the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, or if there are flaws that violate the Constitution and the National Assembly Act, which uphold the principles of parliamentary democracy."
The court continued, "Candidates Ma Eun-hyeok, Jeong Gye-seon, and Jo Han-chang, elected by the National Assembly as judges, meet the qualifications set forth in the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, and there are no defects that would indicate the election process violated laws such as the Constitution and the National Assembly Act, which adhere to the principles of parliamentary democracy." It added, "The acting president has a constitutional obligation to appoint these three as judges, yet by only appointing two and failing to appoint Ma Eun-hyeok to date, has not fulfilled this constitutional obligation."
The Constitutional Court also concluded that "the Speaker of the National Assembly, representing the National Assembly, may file for a dispute over authority as a defensive measure against the infringement of the National Assembly's authority, and that a separate plenary session resolution is not deemed necessary." The court noted, "This complaint pertains not only to the restoration of the National Assembly's authority but also to the need to restore the constitutional order compromised due to the failure to appoint judges, thus it should be viewed as validly submitted within the scope of the Speaker's representation, even if it has not gone through the plenary session's resolution as a separate agenda item."
Meanwhile, Justices Jeong Hyung-sik, Kim Bok-hyeong, and Jo Han-chang issued a separate opinion. They stated, "We cannot agree with the legal opinion that no plenary resolution is required for the Speaker of the National Assembly to file for a dispute over authority on behalf of the National Assembly," suggesting that a plenary resolution should be necessary for the Speaker to represent the National Assembly in such a filing.
A legal opinion corresponds to the conclusions contained in the ruling of the Constitutional Court. A separate opinion aligns with the legal opinion in conclusion but differs in reasoning.
These justices emphasized, "The National Assembly is composed of members elected as representatives of the entire populace, and these members form the National Assembly, which serves as the representative body of the people," adding, "Member participation in the decision-making and legislative processes of the National Assembly is essential for binding decisions of the Assembly."
However, the Constitutional Court mentioned in a separate press release that "the three justices who issued a separate opinion had passed a resolution in the National Assembly plenary session on Feb. 14, stating their support for this dispute over authority and confirming that the request for this dispute and subsequent legal actions are valid and lawful, thereby rectifying any procedural defects and deeming the request legally valid post-facto."
Earlier, on the second debate of this case on the 10th, acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae responded to the National Assembly's request for an opportunity to remedy the defects in this case by saying, "How long will it take for the plenary resolution? If you intend to submit it, do so." Subsequently, on the 14th, the National Assembly, led by the opposition Democratic Party and others, adopted a resolution demanding the appointment of Constitutional Court Judge Ma Eun-hyeok and submitted it to the court in the form of a reference document.