Constitutional Court Cancels Second Ever Supreme Court Ruling... "Trial Contrary to Binding Effect Violates Constitution"

Constitutional Court Grand Chamber, Jongno-gu, Seoul / Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Constitutional Court has ruled unconstitutional the part of the prohibition on judicial review that excludes 'court judgments' from the scope of constitutional complaint trials, specifically the part concerning 'judgments contrary to the binding effect of unconstitutional rulings on laws,' and annulled the Supreme Court's ruling that did not comply with the limited unconstitutionality decision. This is the second time since 1997 that the Constitutional Court has directly annulled a court judgment.

On the afternoon of the 30th, the Constitutional Court, with a unanimous opinion of all justices, stated that the part of Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act concerning 'court judgments'?specifically the part about 'judgments contrary to the binding effect of unconstitutional rulings on laws'?is unconstitutional. It also ruled that the court's dismissal of the retrial request by petitioner A infringed upon the right to request a trial and must be annulled.

The Constitutional Court pointed out, "Unconstitutional rulings on laws, which are the result of exercising the constitutional review authority granted to the Constitutional Court by the Constitution, bind all state agencies and local governments, including courts," and added, "Court judgments that deny the binding effect of unconstitutional rulings on laws not only contradict the binding effect of the Constitutional Court's decisions but also directly violate the constitutional determination that grants the Constitutional Court the authority of constitutional review over laws."

Furthermore, the Court emphasized, "Limited unconstitutionality decisions, which involve constitutionally compliant interpretations of laws during the Constitutional Court's review of unconstitutionality and are a form of partial unconstitutionality decisions, also fall under unconstitutional rulings on laws resulting from the exercise of constitutional review authority granted by the Constitution." Limited unconstitutionality is a modified decision that declares a law unconstitutional only insofar as it is interpreted in a specific way by the court, while leaving the law's effect intact.

Previously, petitioner A was appointed as a member of the Jeju Province Integrated (Disaster) Impact Assessment Committee in February 2003 but was sentenced to two years in prison for bribery related to his duties. He filed a constitutional complaint arguing that including review committee members under local governments as 'public officials' under the Criminal Act and the former Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act violates the Constitution. The Constitutional Court issued a limited unconstitutionality decision stating that members of the Jeju Province Impact Assessment Committee should not be included within the scope of public officials.

Based on this, A requested a retrial, which was dismissed, and after the Supreme Court also dismissed his appeal, he turned again to the Constitutional Court. He filed a constitutional complaint trial seeking annulment of the part of Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act concerning 'court judgments,' the dismissal of the appeal, the dismissal of the retrial, and the dismissal of the appeal against the retrial dismissal.

On this day, a Constitutional Court official explained, "This clarifies the meaning of the Constitutional Court's constitutional review authority over laws granted by the Constitution and the effect of limited unconstitutionality decisions as partial unconstitutionality decisions," adding, "This concerns court judgments that denied the binding effect of the Constitutional Court's limited unconstitutionality decisions and refused to accept retrial requests under the retrial procedures stipulated by the Constitutional Court Act."

However, the official added, "This does not apply to guilty verdicts finalized before the limited unconstitutionality decision in this case, so requests for trials regarding those are inadmissible."

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