People Power Party "Min Hyung-bae's Resignation Illegal and Unconstitutional" vs Democratic Party "Highly Political Act"

People Power Party "Min lawmaker, interested party who proposed the Kusuwanbak bill"
Democratic Party "Petitioners, substantial participants in deliberation and voting... Not a violation of the National Assembly Act"

On the 12th, constitutional court justices are entering the grand courtroom of the Constitutional Court for the public hearing on the 'Complete Prosecution Reform'.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The first public hearing on the constitutional dispute over the "Complete Prosecution Reform Act" (검수완박법) requested by the People Power Party was held on the 12th at the Constitutional Court. The People Power Party argued that the bill severely and unconstitutionally infringed on the deliberation and voting rights of members of the National Assembly, while the National Assembly side countered that since there was no infringement of these rights, the request to nullify the declaration of the bill's passage should be dismissed.

At 2 p.m. on the same day, the Constitutional Court held the first public hearing in the Grand Courtroom on the case where the People Power Party filed a constitutional dispute against the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chair of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, claiming that their rights to deliberate and vote on the bill were violated. The court listened to the opinions of both the National Assembly and the People Power Party.

Jeon Ju-hye, a People Power Party lawmaker and the petitioner in the constitutional dispute over the Complete Prosecution Reform Act, emphasized that Min Hyung-bae, who left the Democratic Party, should not have been appointed as a member of the agenda adjustment committee. Jeon pointed out, "Min was a member of the Democratic Party who proposed the Complete Prosecution Reform Act in February last year," and added, "Min also participated in the bill proposal submitted as the party's official stance by the Democratic Party in April, making him a party with vested interests."

She continued, "(Min) participated as a member of the second negotiation group, i.e., the opposition's quota on the adjustment committee, which can only be seen as an attempt to favor the Democratic Party, and having a person with vested interests on the other side forming the agenda adjustment committee is highly illegal and unconstitutional."

Jeon also argued that the agenda adjustment committee failed to meet important requirements due to insufficient discussion. She said, "The agenda adjustment committee ended in 17 minutes, and the meeting itself had serious defects as if it did not exist," and raised her voice, "The People Power Party immediately requested the election of the agenda adjustment committee chair as soon as the committee started, but then interim chair Kim Jin-pyo ignored this and proceeded with the committee."

Jeon pointed out serious problems with the Complete Prosecution Reform Act that passed through the agenda adjustment committee. She stated that the bill submitted to the plenary session at the time differed from the bill adjusted and amended by the floor leaders of the People Power Party and the Democratic Party, Kwon Seong-dong and Park Hong-geun. She argued that the identity between the plenary submission and the amended bill could not be recognized.

Jeon said, "The Legislation and Judiciary Committee's resolution differed from the bill submitted to the plenary session, and the amended bill was unilaterally submitted and forcibly processed by the Democratic Party," and claimed, "The Complete Prosecution Reform Act has unconstitutionality and illegality that severely infringe on the principles of parliamentary democracy, due process, and the fundamental rights of the people."

On the other hand, the National Assembly side rebutted that there was no infringement of the deliberation and voting rights of members of the National Assembly and that the bill was passed in accordance with the Constitution and laws. The National Assembly's representative stated, "The petitioners substantially participated in the deliberation and voting but only abstained from voting, so there was no infringement," and argued, "Even in cases where the deliberation and voting rights were partially recognized in constitutional disputes against the Speaker, there has been no precedent of invalidating the declaration of a bill's passage."

Furthermore, they said, "Min's departure from the Democratic Party and appointment to the agenda adjustment committee are inherent rights of the National Assembly as a state institution and its chairman to organize its own meetings within the scope of the National Assembly's autonomy, and are highly political acts," adding, "If there is no violation of the National Assembly Act, the public should respect that, and it is not appropriate to subject it to judicial review."

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