[Reporter’s Notebook] The Inside Story of the Prosecutors' Collective Action

On the 20th, prosecutors at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, are announcing the results of the National Prosecutors' Representatives Meeting held to respond to the legislation of 'Geomsu Wanbak' (Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights). Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] Over the past week, prosecutors nationwide have unusually gathered by rank. Following the high prosecutors (on the 18th), ordinary prosecutors met on the 19th, and on the 20th, frontline chief prosecutors held a meeting. Prosecutor General Kim Oh-soo attempted to reach a settlement by meeting President Moon Jae-in and has been rushing around daily to meet members of the National Assembly.

There are criticisms regarding these prosecutors. Their collective actions are seen as proof that "the prosecution is a political organization," and it is pointed out that such collective behavior violates the National Public Officials Act, which prohibits collective actions. Since prosecutors are also public officials, the saying goes, "If ordered from above, you must comply." Some say it resembles a "strong labor union," and elsewhere, concerns are raised that the ‘principle of unity of prosecutors,’ which has disappeared from the Prosecution Service Act, has been revived, causing problems.

However, from the prosecution’s perspective, these criticisms are quite disappointing. This is also true from an outside viewpoint. Understanding their circumstances makes it comprehensible. Defending investigative authority is a matter of life and death for the prosecution. It is literally a matter of survival. The foundation on which the prosecution has maintained political independence and earned honor has been investigations. The phrase "prosecutors must speak through investigations" emerged from this belief. Therefore, investigations are like a pillar supporting the prosecution. Losing investigative authority inevitably raises concerns that the prosecution organization will become useless. Additionally, there is a public interest argument that harm to the people would be transferred, so this must be prevented. This view is shared not only by the prosecution but by all legal professionals.

The purpose of the National Public Officials Act in prohibiting collective actions by public officials is to prevent paralysis of national functions caused by strikes or similar actions. The prosecution is well aware of this. That is why meetings were held after working hours to avoid interfering with official duties. Their efforts should be seen as attempts to express their position without causing harm to the state. If the deprivation of investigative authority is a critical matter of "life or death," then the procedures should be more lawful and just. Therefore, the current situation in the National Assembly, where legislation is being pushed through without sufficient time or discussion, is clearly nonsensical.

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