Constitutional Court: "Government's Sealing of Sewol Ferry Disaster Records Is Not Subject to Constitutional Complaint"

Chief Justice Yoon Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court and the justices are waiting for the start of the constitutional review ruling on the unconstitutionality confirmation constitutional complaint regarding the "Announcement of the Korea-Japan Comfort Women Issue Agreement" held on the 27th at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] After former President Park Geun-hye was dismissed by impeachment, the government transferred the records related to the 'Sewol Ferry Disaster' and designated a protection period. Although the bereaved families and others filed a constitutional complaint against this measure, the Constitutional Court dismissed it. The court ruled that it is not subject to adjudication.

On the 12th, the Constitutional Court announced that it unanimously dismissed the constitutional complaint filed by Sewol Ferry Disaster victims and civic groups, who requested confirmation that the 'transfer of presidential records and designation of protection period' was unconstitutional.

In April-May 2017, Hwang Kyo-ahn, then Acting President, ordered the transfer of presidential records produced during former President Park's tenure to the Central Records Management Agency and designated a protection period for some records including those related to the 'Sewol Ferry Disaster.' The bereaved families and civic groups filed a constitutional complaint, arguing that this action infringed on fundamental rights such as the right to know.

The Constitutional Court viewed the 'transfer of records' as an internal and procedural act between state agencies for changing the institution responsible for managing records, and thus not an exercise of public authority subject to constitutional complaint adjudication. The act of the Presidential Secretariat’s Records Manager transferring presidential records to the Central Records Management Agency does not constitute an 'exercise of public authority' subject to constitutional complaint adjudication.

The court reached the same conclusion regarding the 'designation of protection period' by then Acting President Hwang. The 'designation of protection period' is an internal classification and notification of records between state agencies, and therefore cannot be considered a direct exercise of public authority against the people or an exercise of public authority that directly affects the legal status of the petitioners. Consequently, it is difficult to recognize a legal relevance to fundamental rights infringement, the court said.

Regarding the petitioners' claim of 'restriction of the right to know,' the court explained that neither the 'transfer of records' nor the 'designation of protection period' directly causes an infringement of the right to know.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.