Did the Corruption Investigation Office Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee Ultimately Fail to Recommend a Candidate and Disband? ... Opposition Party Recommender Says "It Must Resume" (Comprehensive)

Jo Jae-yeon, Chairman of the National Assembly's Committee for the Recommendation of the Chief Prosecutor of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, attended and presided over the third meeting of the recommendation committee held at the National Assembly on the 18th. Photo by Yoon Dong-ju

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (HCIO) Candidate Recommendation Committee (Recommendation Committee) held its third meeting on the 18th to narrow down two candidates for the inaugural HCIO chief, but ultimately ended without successfully recommending any candidates.

While five of the seven committee members, excluding the two opposition party recommended members, considered the Recommendation Committee effectively dissolved with the conclusion of the meeting, the opposition party members insisted that the committee should reconvene, leaving the possibility of a fourth meeting uncertain.

During the meeting, after three rounds of voting, it was reported that two judge candidates?Attorney Jeon Hyun-jung, recommended by Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae, and Kim Jin-wook, Senior Researcher at the Constitutional Court, one of three candidates recommended by Lee Chan-hee, President of the Korean Bar Association?each received five votes from the recommending members, the highest number of votes.

Ruling Party, Bar Association President, and Chief of the Court Administration Office Agree: “No Additional HCIO Chief Candidate Recommendation Committee Meetings”

The third Recommendation Committee meeting, held at the National Assembly from 2 p.m., ended after 6 p.m.

Immediately after the meeting, Lee Chan-hee, President of the Bar Association, stated, “It’s not that we failed to narrow down the candidates, but at least six votes are required, and that was not achieved,” adding, “We apologize and feel sorry to the public for not meeting the national expectations for the inaugural HCIO chief.”

He further said, “We decided to end the meeting without reconvening,” and explained, “Although no formal dissolution procedure was followed, since no further meetings will be held, the Speaker of the National Assembly or the committee chair must convene the meeting, or at least one-third of the members must request it for a meeting to be held.”

All recommending members except the two opposition party members, attorneys Lee Heon and Lim Jeong-hyeok, shared the view that the Recommendation Committee no longer holds significance.

Lee also criticized, “The HCIO chief must be guaranteed the highest political neutrality and independence, but the composition of the Recommendation Committee itself is a continuation of politics,” and added, “I don’t know how the committee members will be composed, but having representatives of political parties as committee members is undesirable.”

He continued, “Since the meeting to select an HCIO chief candidate who is guaranteed political neutrality should not become an extension of politics, I think the final decision should be made by the National Assembly.”

Article 6, Paragraph 5 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the HCIO states, “The Recommendation Committee shall be convened by the chairperson upon the request of the Speaker of the National Assembly, or upon the request of at least one-third of the members, or when the chairperson deems it necessary, and resolutions shall be passed with the approval of six or more members.”

HCIO Law Requires Recommendation of Two Candidates for Dissolution... Opposition: “Must Receive Additional Candidate Recommendations and Reconvene”

Meanwhile, the opposition party members of the Recommendation Committee insist on holding another meeting to conduct additional verification of candidates and to receive additional candidate recommendations to narrow down the final candidate with political neutrality.

Attorney Lee Heon said, “Before today’s meeting, we requested various materials about the candidates, and most of the materials were received, including parts that required the candidates’ explanations,” adding, “Nevertheless, the voting process proceeded, and in the first round of open voting, no candidate received six votes.”

He explained, “In the second round of anonymous voting among ten candidates, no candidate received six votes either,” and “Therefore, a third round of voting was held among the four candidates who received the most votes, with the agreement that if a candidate received six votes, that person would be decided as the candidate, but no such candidate emerged.”

Attorney Lee expressed strong dissatisfaction that, despite opposition members’ objections, the Recommendation Committee decided not to reconvene.

He said, “Ultimately, in the situation where the final candidate decision was aborted, the opposition members clearly stated, ‘Let’s reconvene, receive new candidate recommendations, and proceed with the recommendation process for a new HCIO chief candidate. Or at least discuss other methods to decide the final candidate,’” but “the other recommending members, excluding the two opposition members, concluded not to reconvene and effectively ended the committee despite the opposition.”

He added, “The Recommendation Committee is an administrative body, and voluntarily ending its activities is, in my view, inappropriate,” and “There are people who expect or worry about this. Ending the committee like this is unacceptable.”

He continued, “We regret this and are considering our own measures regarding this matter,” and “What remains is that at least one-third of the recommending members must request reconvening, and we intend to do so.”

Regarding the dissolution of the Recommendation Committee, Article 6, Paragraph 7 of the HCIO Act states, “When the Recommendation Committee recommends candidates for the chief pursuant to Article 5, Paragraph 1, the committee shall be deemed dissolved.”

The law assumes that the Recommendation Committee recommends two final candidates to the President, and once the recommendation is completed, the committee automatically dissolves.

However, controversy is expected to continue over whether the Recommendation Committee can terminate its activities based on the majority members’ will in the current situation where the legally mandated final candidate recommendation has not been made.

A Tilted Playing Field of 5:2... Except for Two Opposition Members, All Support the Same Candidates

The ten candidates under review are Attorney Jeon Hyun-jung (recommended by the Minister of Justice), Choi Woon-sik (recommended by the Chief of the Court Administration Office), Kim Jin-wook, Lee Geon-ri, Han Myung-kwan (recommended by the President of the Korean Bar Association), Kwon Dong-joo, Jeon Jong-min (recommended by ruling party recommending members), and Kang Chan-woo, Kim Kyung-soo, Seok Dong-hyun (recommended by opposition party recommending members).

Among them, at the meeting, Attorney Jeon Hyun-jung, recommended by Minister Choo, and Kim Jin-wook, Senior Researcher at the Constitutional Court recommended by Lee Chan-hee, each received five votes, the highest number.

Ultimately, excluding the two opposition recommending members, Minister Choo, two ruling party recommending members, as well as the relatively neutral Lee Chan-hee and Cho Jae-yeon, Chief of the Court Administration Office, appeared to maintain the same stance as the government or ruling party.

Attorney Lee, an opposition recommending member, expressed dissatisfaction after the second meeting held on the 13th, stating that Lee Chan-hee and Cho Jae-yeon advocated for “speed” as if representing the government or ruling party, describing the situation as “a tilted playing field of 5 to 2.”

With the failure of today’s meeting, attention is focused on whether the ruling party, which has pressured the opposition to launch the HCIO within the year, will choose to override the opposition’s veto rights stipulated in the HCIO Act through actual legal amendments, even at the risk of public criticism.

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