"Many Experts Selected by Both Ruling and Opposition Parties Agree on the Need for 'Public Discussion on the Construction of Sejong Assembly Hall'"

[Asia Economy (Sejong) Reporter Jeong Il-woong] At the public discussion on the construction of the National Assembly Sejong Office Building, multiple experts selected by both the ruling and opposition parties emphasized the necessity of the project. They also expressed opinions that the construction of the Sejong Office Building does not violate the constitution and is positive for national balanced development and regional economic effects.

According to Sejong City on the 27th, a public hearing was recently held at the National Assembly as the final preliminary procedure for the construction of the Sejong Office Building. The hearing was organized to discuss alleviating inefficiencies caused by the separation between the National Assembly and government ministries and to promote national balanced development.

At the hearing, ruling and opposition lawmakers and their selected experts participated as witnesses, including Senior Research Fellow Jo Pan-gi from the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Professor Dong-il Noh from Kyung Hee University Law School, Attorney Choi Jong-ho from Joy & Partners Law Office, and Visiting Professor Lim Jong-hoon from Hongik University College of Law, sharing their opinions on the construction of the Sejong Office Building.

Senior Research Fellow Jo Pan-gi emphasized the necessity of installing the Sejong Office Building to lead national balanced development, strengthen national competitiveness, and resolve administrative inefficiencies. In particular, he predicted that the establishment of the Sejong Office Building would generate a production inducement effect of 755 billion KRW nationwide and create employment for approximately 4,850 people.

Other experts also converged on agreeing with the construction of the Sejong Office Building. Professor Dong-il Noh welcomed the legal amendment for the construction of the Sejong Office Building and suggested that constitutional requests, national balanced development, and prevention of government waste should be promptly addressed during the discussion process.

He added, “The Sejong Office Building should play a role in minimizing government waste caused by the separation between the administrative ministries relocated to Sejong and the National Assembly,” emphasizing, “In addition, the presidential office and the standing committee and budget committee meeting facilities related to ministries located in Sejong should also be constructed together.”

There was also a claim dismissing the possibility of constitutional violation that had hindered the construction of the Sejong Office Building. Attorney Choi Jong-ho explained, “The authority of the National Assembly, a collegial institution, is all resolved and voted on in the plenary session, and standing committees perform auxiliary and supportive roles for the plenary session. Therefore, even if auxiliary bodies such as standing committees perform their duties in Sejong, it cannot be considered that the official location of the National Assembly’s duties has been relocated.”

This is interpreted as meaning that the construction of the Sejong Office Building does not violate the 2004 Constitutional Court decision. At that time, the Constitutional Court (in the precedent confirming the unconstitutionality of the Special Measures Act for the Construction of the New Administrative Capital) ruled that “Seoul being the capital of the Republic of Korea is a customary constitution, and the official location of the National Assembly’s duties must be in the capital.”

Professor Lim Jong-hoon, in line with the previous experts, expressed the opinion that “the proper way is to amend the constitution to relocate both the National Assembly and the government to Sejong City.” This is to eliminate inefficiencies caused by the geographical separation of the National Assembly and government and to promote national balanced development by amending the constitution.

The ruling and opposition lawmakers attending the public hearing generally did not show disagreement with the construction of the Sejong Office Building. First, lawmakers from the Democratic Party of Korea emphasized the legitimacy of the construction by focusing on the sequential relocation of the National Assembly, while lawmakers from the People Power Party reportedly emphasized that “although we support the construction of the Sejong Office Building, national consensus is necessary.”

Meanwhile, the public hearing was organized as a supplementary procedure after the National Assembly Steering Committee’s Subcommittee on National Assembly Operation Improvement judged in December last year that the public discussion process for the construction of the Sejong Office Building was insufficient.

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