Constitutional Court Rules "Deposit Return Restrictions for Preliminary Candidates Rejected in Nominations Are Unconstitutional"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the former Public Official Election Act, which did not allow the return of deposits even if a candidate failed the nomination screening for local government heads and did not register as a candidate, is unconstitutional.

On the 5th, the Constitutional Court announced that it made a decision of constitutional inconsistency in a case where Mr. A, a preliminary candidate for a local government head election, and others filed a constitutional review petition claiming that the past Public Official Election Act, which stipulated the reasons for returning deposits, violated the Constitution.

Previously, Mr. A registered as a preliminary candidate for local government head elections in the 6th and 7th terms and paid a deposit of 10 million won to the Election Commission. However, he failed the party nomination screening, did not register as a candidate, and the deposit was forfeited to the national treasury. Article 57, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, Item (d) of the former Public Official Election Act stipulates that if a candidate fails to receive a party's recommendation and does not register as a candidate, the entire deposit shall be forfeited to the state.

Afterwards, Mr. A requested the Election Commission to return the money but was notified that the deposit would be forfeited to the state based on the legal provision. Mr. A then filed a constitutional review petition, which the court accepted.

Previously, in 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled the same provision unconstitutional in part related to constituency National Assembly elections, stating it infringed on the property rights of preliminary candidates.

The Constitutional Court stated this time as well, "There are only differences in methods between constituency National Assembly elections and local government head elections," and "In terms of the purpose of the deposit system, it is the same, so the above judgment is equally valid in this case." It cited the precedent of constitutional inconsistency that if preliminary candidates who fail party nomination screening do not receive a return of their deposits, political newcomers may hesitate to register as preliminary candidates, which goes against the purpose of introducing the deposit system.

Meanwhile, Article 57, Paragraph 1 of the Public Official Election Act was amended in March this year following the constitutional inconsistency decision. The amended provision added "cases where a candidate applied to their affiliated party for nomination but did not receive party recommendation and thus did not register as a candidate" as a reason for deposit return.

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