Ruling and Opposition Clash Over Corruption Investigation Office... Outcome Hinges on Constitutional Court Ruling

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae (center) is taking a commemorative photo at the public hearing on "Directions for Establishing the Corruption Investigation Office for Advanced Investigation Organization" held on the afternoon of the 25th at the International Conference Hall of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Jung-gu, Seoul. From the left, Nam Ki-myeong, Head of the Preparatory Team for the Establishment of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, Minister Choo, and Lee Chan-hee, President of the Korean Bar Association. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Cheol-eung] As the ruling and opposition parties clash over the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Agency (Gong-su-cheo), the Constitutional Court's decision is expected to determine the outcome.

On the 3rd, Yoon Ho-jung, chairman of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee and a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, appeared on KBS's "Kim Kyung-rae's Strongest Current Affairs" and said, "Today, we will form an internal recommendation committee to recommend candidates for the Gong-su-cheo chief and promptly discuss to recommend two members. We also plan to continuously request recommendations from the opposition party. We will not wait indefinitely."

He added, "I believe the United Future Party will cooperate in recommending the Gong-su-cheo chief," explaining, "Due to the opposition party's non-cooperation, it may become unavoidable to amend the Gong-su-cheo Act, which could result in appointing a Gong-su-cheo chief more unfavorable to the opposition."

According to the Gong-su-cheo Act, the candidate recommendation committee for the Gong-su-cheo chief consists of seven members, of whom two are recommended by the opposition party's negotiation group, and six members must agree for a recommendation to be possible. The Democratic Party's position is that if the United Future Party does not cooperate, amending the law to remove this veto power is inevitable. The United Future Party is expected to end its boycott of the National Assembly next week and return, but it is likely to maintain a hardline stance regarding the Gong-su-cheo chief candidate recommendation and subsequent bills.

The United Future Party argues that the Gong-su-cheo Act itself violates the Constitution, so the possibility of immediate cooperation is low. Former United Future Party lawmaker Kang Seok-jin filed a constitutional complaint against the Gong-su-cheo Act in February, and last month, party member Yoo Sang-beom also filed a constitutional complaint, with the Constitutional Court currently reviewing the case. The United Future Party has no choice but to wait until results such as injunction approvals are announced.

On the 1st, Joo Ho-young, floor leader of the United Future Party, stated, "The Gong-su-cheo Act was passed through the so-called fast-track process, which has fatal procedural flaws and violates the principle of separation of powers and the constitutional system, so we consider it unconstitutional," adding, "We have filed a constitutional complaint, and the ruling is still pending."

If the Constitutional Court rules the Act unconstitutional, the Gong-su-cheo's scheduled launch will be impossible as the United Future Party wishes. However, if not, it will be difficult for the party to continue solely with vetoes. It is highly likely that after recommending the Gong-su-cheo chief candidate members, the party will focus on pushing through their preferred candidates.

The Constitutional Court is also expected to reach a conclusion soon, considering the Gong-su-cheo Act's stipulated launch deadline of July 15. On the 1st, Park Jong-moon, secretary-general of the Constitutional Court, said at the National Assembly, "Everyone knows that the enforcement date of the Gong-su-cheo Act is July 15," and added, "Taking such factors into account, we expect the court to make a swift, fair, and constitutionally appropriate judgment."

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