Ministry of Justice Appoints Former Judge Kang Il-won as Representative for Constitutional Court Lawsuit on 'Complete Prosecution Reform'

Former Constitutional Court Justice Kang Il-won Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] With the enforcement of the 'Prosecution Investigation Authority Transfer Act' (commonly known as 'Geomsu Wanbak Law'), which significantly reduces the prosecution's direct investigative authority, scheduled for the 10th of next month, the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution have appointed former Constitutional Court Justice Kang Il-won (Judicial Research and Training Institute Class 14) as their representative in the constitutional dispute adjudication petition filed with the Constitutional Court.

On the afternoon of the 23rd, the Ministry of Justice stated, "Based on Attorney Kang Il-won's extensive legal experience and profound insight into constitutional adjudication, we will deepen the petitioners' arguments and strive to provide thorough representation."

Former Justice Kang began his judicial career in 1985 at the Seoul Criminal Court and served as a Constitutional Court Justice from 2012 to 2018. He presided over the impeachment trial of former President Park Geun-hye. He currently serves as the Chair of the Prosecution Human Rights Committee and the Prosecution Investigation Deliberation Committee. In April, during the legislative phase of the 'Geomsu Wanbak' law, he expressed criticism, stating, "While it may be advantageous for protecting suspects, there could be issues concerning victim protection."

Additionally, the Ministry of Justice has recommended Professor Lee In-ho, a constitutional law scholar at Chung-Ang University Law School, as an expert witness for the public hearing on the constitutional dispute adjudication scheduled for the 27th of next month.

The respondent, the National Assembly, selected Professor Lee Hwang-hee of Sungkyunkwan University Law School as their expert witness. The National Assembly had previously appointed attorney Noh Hee-beom, a former constitutional researcher, as their representative.

The constitutional dispute adjudication is a procedure in which the Constitutional Court issues authoritative rulings when disputes arise between state institutions regarding the existence or scope of their powers. When the legislative acts of the National Assembly are in question, the court can examine not only procedural defects in the legislative process but also whether the law itself is unconstitutional.

The Ministry of Justice and the prosecution argue that once the Geomsu Wanbak Law is enforced, in cases where the prosecution's direct investigation is prohibited, the prosecution must unconditionally accept police investigations. This, they claim, infringes on the public's right to a speedy trial and hampers the exercise of prosecutorial functions due to the reduction of investigative capabilities, ultimately causing harm to the public.

The Ministry of Justice also criticized the legislative process of the Geomsu Wanbak Law. They stated that reasonable opportunities for discussion were blocked, the principle of substantive majority was ignored, and the so-called 'disguised party switching' undermined the agenda adjustment procedure at the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee stage. Furthermore, at the plenary session stage, the 'splitting of sessions' method blocked unlimited debate procedures that would allow minority opinions to be expressed, and proposals unrelated to the standing committee's agenda were submitted as amended consent proposals at the plenary session, disregarding even the deliberation process.

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