Constitutional Court Dismisses 'Yoon Seok-yeol Prosecutor Disciplinary Law Constitutional Complaint'... "Filing Itself Is Improper" (Comprehensive)

"The regulation does not directly infringe on fundamental rights"… Yoon's side "Focusing on cancellation lawsuit of disciplinary action"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The constitutional complaint filed by former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, arguing that the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act?which allows the Minister of Justice to request disciplinary action and appoint the majority of disciplinary committee members?is unconstitutional, has been dismissed. The court ruled that the provision itself does not directly infringe on the fundamental rights of the subject, and therefore is not subject to constitutional complaint.

On the 24th, the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint challenging the former Prosecutor Disciplinary Act provisions that determine the composition and nomination of the Disciplinary Committee, which claimed to violate the Prosecutor General’s right to hold public office, by a 7 to 1 vote (on the merits). The court stated, "The alleged infringement of fundamental rights by the petitioner occurs only when disciplinary actions such as dismissal, removal, or suspension are taken," and ruled that the constitutional complaint itself was inadmissible.

Last year, former Prosecutor General Yoon filed the constitutional complaint after former Minister of Justice Chu requested disciplinary action citing political neutrality and other reasons, arguing that the provisions regulating the composition of the disciplinary committee in the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act violated the Constitution. Yoon’s side argued, "In disciplinary procedures against the Prosecutor General, the Minister of Justice can both request disciplinary action and appoint or commission the majority of the disciplinary committee members, so fairness cannot be guaranteed at all."

Disciplinary actions against prosecutors are decided by a disciplinary committee chaired by the Minister of Justice. Article 5, Paragraph 2, Items 2 and 3 of the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act stipulate that among the five members of the disciplinary committee other than the Minister and Vice Minister, two prosecutors are appointed by the Minister of Justice, and three external experts such as lawyers and law professors are commissioned by the Minister. These five members make up the committee excluding the Minister and Vice Minister, totaling seven members.

At the time, Lee Wankyu, the legal representative for former Prosecutor General Yoon, argued, "The relevant legal provisions, as applied to the disciplinary action against the Prosecutor General, violate the right to hold public office guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution and the right to equality under Article 11, Paragraph 1." He further explained, "The provisions exceed the reasonable scope of legislative discretion and seriously undermine the fairness of the disciplinary committee’s composition," and "since it allows the deprivation of the Prosecutor General’s right to hold public office, it exceeds the legislative limits of restricting fundamental rights under Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution."

However, the Constitutional Court held that the provisions are not subject to constitutional complaint. The court reasoned that fundamental rights infringement occurs only when the disciplinary committee, formed under these provisions, makes a disciplinary decision and it is actually enforced. It added, "For a legal provision to be subject to constitutional complaint, one must suffer direct infringement of fundamental rights without waiting for specific enforcement actions under the provision," and explained, "The challenged provisions regulate the organizational norms concerning the composition of the disciplinary committee, so fundamental rights infringement does not directly arise from the provisions themselves."

Justice Lee Seon-ae, however, issued a dissenting opinion stating that the Constitutional Court should review the constitutionality of the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act. She noted, "When the Minister of Justice, who is a member of the Cabinet and concurrently a member of the National Assembly, is involved in disciplinary procedures imposing status disadvantages on the Prosecutor General, ensuring political neutrality is of even greater importance."

Meanwhile, Son Kyung-sik, a lawyer representing former Prosecutor General Yoon, said immediately after the Constitutional Court’s decision, "We respect the Constitutional Court’s ruling," and added, "We plan to challenge the procedural and substantive illegality of the disciplinary action in the ongoing lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disciplinary decision."

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