‘Geomsu Wanbak’ Jurisdiction Dispute Preliminary Battle... First Public Hearing

People Power Party "Bill passed in 14 minutes without adjustment... Clear violation of National Assembly Act"
National Assembly "Lawful approval and proclamation according to Constitution and National Assembly Act... No infringement on deliberation and voting rights"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] On the 12th, the Constitutional Court will hold the first public hearing on the authority dispute trial regarding the "Complete Prosecution Reform Act" requested by the People Power Party. Since the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution also filed authority dispute trials, the public hearing on this day is analyzed to be a preliminary round for the main game, which is the authority dispute trial filed by the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution.

During the public hearing, the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution are expected to closely analyze the claims made by the National Assembly side and prepare for their upcoming public hearings.

The Constitutional Court will open the first public hearing at 2 p.m. in the Grand Courtroom on the case where the People Power Party filed an authority dispute trial against the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, claiming that their rights to review and vote on the bill were infringed. The court will listen to the opinions of both the National Assembly side and the People Power Party side.

The key issues in the authority dispute trial filed by the People Power Party include whether it was illegal to appoint Representative Min Hyung-bae, who left the Democratic Party, as a member of the agenda adjustment committee and form the adjustment committee; whether there was substantive adjustment review in the adjustment committee; whether there were procedural violations in the full meeting of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee; and whether the petitioners' rights to review and vote on the bill were infringed.

The People Power Party argued in their petition to the Constitutional Court that the chairperson of the adjustment committee blatantly violated the National Assembly Act by forcing a vote just 14 minutes after the opening of the meeting on bills adjusting prosecutors' investigative rights, which had never been properly reviewed in the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, without any adjustment discussions.

They also claimed that the chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee appointed Representative Min as an adjustment committee member from the non-negotiating group to neutralize the adjustment committee, thereby rendering the adjustment committee ineffective and nullifying the National Assembly Act.

Furthermore, considering the composition of the adjustment committee members and the method of resolution approval, they emphasized that there were such serious defects that the review and resolution could not be considered to exist, which corresponds to the non-existence of the adjustment committee procedure itself. They argued that the chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s act of approval and proclamation, which inherited the serious and obvious procedural defects of the adjustment committee, as well as the Speaker of the National Assembly’s acts of submitting and presenting the bill to the plenary session and the plenary session’s approval and proclamation, are unconstitutional and invalid.

On the other hand, the National Assembly side rebutted that the appointment of Representative Min as an adjustment committee member by the chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee was made in accordance with the National Assembly Act and had no defects. They argued that the bills in question were properly reviewed and approved through subcommittee and adjustment committee deliberations and resolutions according to the Constitution, the National Assembly Act, and related regulations, and then submitted to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, where they were lawfully approved and proclaimed. Therefore, there was no infringement of the petitioners’ rights to review and vote.

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