Progressive-leaning legal professionals voiced concerns in public over the ruling party's push to create a special court division for insurrection cases, to introduce a new crime of law distortion (tentative name), and to expand the number of Supreme Court justices. The comments came during a debate on "the path forward for the judiciary" on the final day of a public hearing on judicial reform organized by the National Court Administration.
On the morning of the 11th, the National Court Administration held an open discussion featuring figures from various sectors at the Seoul Court Complex in Seocho-dong, Seoul, as the third-day program of the public hearing "Judicial reform for the people: direction and tasks." Representatives from the legal community, academia, and the media discussed the judiciary's future direction amid ongoing reform issues.
The debate first drew sharp criticism of the bill pending in the National Assembly to establish a special court division for insurrection cases, saying the issue is "not how to revise the bill, but that the very creation of such a division is the problem."
Attorney Cha Byeong-jik said, "The very idea of creating a separate division targeting a specific case can only raise doubts about judicial independence and the fairness of trials." The point was that if precedents accumulate of creating dedicated divisions for each political case, the judiciary could solidify into a structure that forms panels in line with political demands.
Regarding the special division for insurrection cases, the manner of legislation also drew criticism. Panelists said that a law that stipulates, "this specific case will be handled by this kind of division," may be a law in form but is, in effect, no different from an administrative disposition for an individual case. If the composition of judges for a case is fixed by law, parties will inevitably feel they are "being tried by a panel prearranged by politicians," and it will be harder for them to accept the ruling.
Concerns were also raised about the ruling camp's parallel push to introduce the crime of law distortion. Cha said, "We already have the Criminal Act, and I worry this would add another odd element, like the National Security Act, birthing another political criminal law." He said that adding a separate offense in an area that can be adequately addressed under the existing criminal law framework—such as false statements, false accusations, and perjury—could ultimately allow selective enforcement depending on a government's interests.
Caution was also urged on increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. While some in the ruling party have floated raising the number from 14 to as many as 26, panelists agreed that "the timing and manner are more important than the expansion itself."
Moon Hyeong-bae, a former judge of the Constitutional Court, said, "Appointments to the Supreme Court involve three actors—the president, the National Assembly, and the chief justice—so the system must be designed not to favor any particular faction," adding, "It would be desirable to delay the expansion of justices until after the general election and, for example, add four justices, guaranteeing both ruling and opposition parties the opportunity to take part in forming the court."
There was no disagreement, however, that reforms are needed to reduce the burden on the court of final appeal. Panelists said that even if expanding the number of justices is discussed, it must be handled as a "package" with measures such as adopting a certiorari-style review for appeals to the Supreme Court, strengthening fact-finding in the first and second trials, and expanding law clerks and expert staff to be effective. The reason, they said, is that expansion alone cannot ease the Supreme Court bottleneck and could only amplify political controversy.
A certiorari-style review allows the Supreme Court, instead of fully hearing every case, to first decide under certain criteria whether a case "needs a Supreme Court judgment or not," accepting only some.
The debate also drew attention because panelists widely regarded as leading progressive figures in the legal community gathered in one place.
Kim Seon-su, a former Supreme Court justice who chaired the session, is known as a human rights and labor attorney, former presidential secretary for judicial reform under the Participatory Government, and former head of the Lawyers for a Democratic Society. Moon, the former judge, also previously served as head of the progressive judges' group "Research Society for Our Law." Former Supreme Court Justice Jo Jae-yeon is a senior legal figure known for principled rulings in political cases during the military regime, and attorney Cha is a commentator in the civic and human rights field who served in the leadership of People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD). Former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Chair Park Eun-jeong (honorary professor at Ewha Womans University Law School) and Sim Seok-tae, a professor at Semyung University, have also voiced progressive views in the fields of human rights and legal philosophy, and of media and law, respectively.