The Constitutional Court said on the 13th that the bill to revise the Constitutional Court Act to introduce adjudication complaints is not a "fourth instance" system and does not violate the Constitution. The bill passed The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 11th, led by the Democratic Party of Korea, after Commissioners from the People Power Party walked out in protest of the forced handling.
The Constitutional Court summarized and released its positions on 15 issues related to adjudication complaints in "Reference materials on adjudication complaints" distributed that day. The materials run 26 pages excluding the table of contents.
◇Courts claim adjudication complaints are "unconstitutional"… concerns over trial delays
The Constitutional Court Act revision bill that passed the Legislation and Judiciary Committee deletes the phrase "except for court judgments" in Article 68, Paragraph 1, allowing constitutional complaints against court judgments. Even for court rulings finalized by the Supreme Court on appeal, a constitutional complaint may be filed if the trial was conducted in a manner contrary to the Constitutional Court's decision or if due process was not observed and fundamental rights were infringed.
Earlier, the National Court Administration, under the Supreme Court, argued in a written opinion sent to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee that the Constitutional Court Act revision bill is unconstitutional under Article 101, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which provides that "judicial power shall be vested in courts composed of judges," and Paragraph 2, which provides that "the courts shall be composed of the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort, and such lower courts as are established by law."
In addition, Park Young-jae, head of the National Court Administration (Supreme Court justice), answered "I agree" to a question at the committee on the 11th asking, "If a fourth instance is introduced by adopting adjudication complaints, what do you think about the concern that the public could fall into a litigation hell?"
◇Constitutional Court: "Even if adjudication complaints are introduced, the Supreme Court is not subordinate to the Constitutional Court"
The materials distributed by the Constitutional Court rebut such criticism. First, the court said, "The view that adjudication complaints violate the Constitution, or the claims that they run counter to the principle of separation of powers or infringe judicial independence, lack constitutional basis." It also said, "Article 111, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution vests constitutional adjudicatory power in the Constitutional Court, making clear the constitutional basis for adjudication complaints."
Regarding the claim that a constitutional amendment is needed to introduce adjudication complaints, the court said it is "a misunderstanding of the principle of separation of powers." The Constitutional Court said, "Even if adjudication complaints are introduced, the Supreme Court does not become a subordinate body of the Constitutional Court," adding, "Spain, which constitutionally separates the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, operates an adjudication complaint system."
Regarding the claim that adding adjudication complaints to the three-instance system of district courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court creates a fourth instance, the court said this "confuses the essence of the system with its appearance." The court said, "The Constitutional Court does not reexamine factual findings or the interpretation and application of laws made by the courts as a fourth instance or super-appeal; it reexamines the constitutional interpretation concerning the meaning and effect of fundamental rights."
There are also claims that introducing adjudication complaints will make case conclusions take excessively long, harming the public. The court said, "Looking at Taiwan, which introduced adjudication complaints in 2022, once Constitutional Court precedents accumulate and the system stabilizes, the number of petitions filed decreases."
Taiwan's Constitutional Court received 747 constitutional complaints in 2021, but that number jumped to 4,371 in 2022. It fell to 1,359 in 2023 and 1,137 in 2024.
The court said, "Germany, Spain, and Taiwan introduced constitutional adjudication systems in the process of overcoming totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships," adding, "Based on past experiences in which the conventional judiciary centered on the courts cooperated with such regimes, there is a comparative-law lesson behind the introduction of adjudication complaints."