"Is It Allowed for the Corruption Investigation Office but Not for the Prosecution?"... Heated Debate in the Judiciary Committee over the Prosecutors' Office Act Amendment

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Ji-eun] A heated debate took place in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee over the amendment to the Prosecutors' Office Act, proposed by Minsaengdang lawmaker Cheon Jeong-bae, which prohibits direct 'dealings' between the Blue House and the prosecution. The opposition party argues that this bill is necessary to restore the independence of the prosecution, while Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae expressed a cautious stance on its passage.

On the 4th, Future United Party lawmaker Joo Kwang-deok asked Minister Choo during the full committee meeting, "Since (Cheon Jeong-bae's bill) completely prohibits the Blue House's Civil Affairs Office, Secretariat, and the President from consulting with the prosecution, it can secure the prosecution's neutrality and independence and enhance public trust," seeking her opinion on the bill's passage.

Earlier, Representative Cheon had proposed amendments to the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Police Act to ban the Blue House from direct dealings such as reporting investigation statuses, requesting data submission, consultations, and instructions with the prosecution and police.

Unified Party lawmaker Jeong Jeom-sik also stated, "Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the Corruption Investigation Office (CIO) Act stipulates that the office shall not engage in any acts of demanding work, giving instructions, or interfering with the performance of duties," adding, "The reason for this provision is to guarantee independence, so shouldn't the same apply to the prosecution?" indicating the necessity of passing the amendment.

In response, Minister Choo acknowledged, "I recognize the purpose of the bill to restore the political independence of the prosecution," but added, "Since it completely prohibits any interference in the performance of duties, it may excessively restrict cooperative work, so it must be carefully considered."

During Minister Choo's response, Representative Joo interrupted, raising his voice, saying, "This is not an answer corresponding to the question's intent, and reading the written materials to the end?it's quite disappointing for a five-term minister." In response, Democratic Party lawmaker Song Ki-heon pointed out, "Do not interrupt when someone is speaking," and also requested Minister Choo, "Although you are a senior in the National Assembly, please be cautious about confronting lawmakers."

Regarding criticisms related to the CIO, Minister Choo explained, "The purpose of the CIO is to block situations where power and the prosecution collude, leading to investigations being conducted with deference to power but prosecutions not being pursued," adding, "Generally, the President is responsible for how criminal justice is implemented in overall legal administration, and by stipulating that inquiries can only be made to the Prosecutor General, responsible politics is being practiced."

Democratic Party lawmaker Baek Hye-ryun also pointed out, "While the neutrality of both the CIO and the prosecution must be maintained, there is a difference," stating, "The CIO investigates high-ranking officials and those in power, so a higher degree of political neutrality must be maintained, whereas the prosecution targets all ordinary citizens, so its affairs are not limited to investigations." Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Cheol-hee said, "The prosecution is an external agency of the Ministry of Justice and belongs to the executive branch, so it is unreasonable for the President not to supervise it," adding, "On the other hand, the CIO is an independent agency not belonging to the executive branch. Why is it a problem for an elected President to exercise supervisory authority?"

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