How Did the 'Waiver of Immunity from Arrest' Become a Populist Pledge?

Among 70 Arrest Consent Bills, Only 17 Passed
Will It Again Remain Merely a 'Declarative Meaning'?
Ruling and Opposition Parties Call to Give Up Immunity from Arrest...

The leaders of both ruling and opposition parties have jointly called for the 'waiver of parliamentary immunity from arrest,' drawing attention to the feasibility of its realization. Parliamentary immunity from arrest is the constitutional right that a member of the National Assembly cannot be arrested or detained without the consent of the Assembly during a session, unless caught in the act. However, as it is literally a 'special right,' members can voluntarily waive its exercise. Given the repeated use of this immunity to create a 'bulletproof parliament' and the fact that abolishing it requires a constitutional amendment, critical views prevail that this time too it is likely to be just a 'noisy empty drum.'

When Power Comes from the Barrel... Protecting the Function of the National Assembly

According to political circles on the 26th, the 'Kim Eun-kyung Innovation Committee,' an innovation body of the Democratic Party of Korea, submitted a pledge on the 23rd in which all Democratic Party lawmakers vowed to waive their immunity from arrest and demanded that the party adopt a party line to approve any arrest motions in the future.

Yoon Hyung-jung, spokesperson for the Innovation Committee, explained, "Parliamentary immunity is a constitutional right guaranteed to lawmakers, but the Democratic Party should proactively relinquish it, trust the judiciary's judgment on arrest and detention reviews, and establish internal procedures to provide legal support through party investigations if problems arise." This is interpreted as a judgment that, amid the heightened internal crisis due to recent moral controversies, the party must take the initiative to demonstrate a decisive relinquishment of privileges.

Kim Ki-hyun, leader of the People Power Party, and lawmakers are taking the oath to waive the parliamentary immunity from arrest at the party meeting held at the National Assembly on the 21st. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Parliamentary immunity from arrest means that a member of the National Assembly, who is not caught in the act, cannot be arrested or detained without the consent of the Assembly during a session. Even if arrested or detained before the session, release can be requested by the Assembly. It was first legislated in 1603 in England under the 'Privilege of Parliament Act.' The original purpose was to protect the function of the parliament from unjust oppression by the executive branch. When power comes from the barrel, it ensures that lawmakers' activities are not restricted by government violence and that normal parliamentary activities can proceed.

However, in South Korea, the 'dysfunction' of parliamentary immunity has overshadowed its 'positive function,' turning it into a subject of criticism. Since the 1948 Constitution, out of 70 arrest consent motions submitted to the National Assembly plenary session, 20 were rejected and 33 were discarded due to term expiration or withdrawal. This means only about 24.2% of arrest consent motions were approved. Notably, in 2003, an incident occurred where parliamentary immunity was perceived as a 'shield for personal corruption' of lawmakers. Arrest consent motions for seven lawmakers suspected of corruption, including receiving 10 billion won in SK Group slush funds in cash in an underground parking lot, were not processed en masse. Public opinion worsened significantly, and although the ruling and opposition parties were pressured to submit the motions collectively to the plenary session, all were rejected. Calls to abolish parliamentary immunity grew louder.

Despite Declaration to Waive Immunity... Distrust That 'There Must Be a Rabbit Hole'

[Image source=Yonhap News]

There have been cases where parliamentary immunity was waived. In 2018, Representative Kwon Seong-dong, who was suspected of employment solicitation at Kangwon Land, announced that he would waive his immunity. Representative Kwon said, "I will waive parliamentary immunity and immediately undergo a warrant review," and underwent a pre-trial detention hearing before the National Assembly session opened. However, when the court dismissed the warrant, criticism was directed at the judiciary, leading to further distrust. Judges who dismissed the arrest warrants were labeled as 'law worms' and 'deep-rooted corrupt judges.'

Because of this, the declaration by Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung on the 19th during the National Assembly negotiation group leaders' speech to waive parliamentary immunity, and the pledge signed by People Power Party lawmakers to waive immunity, are being questioned for sincerity as a 'political show.' By the 22nd, 101 out of 112 People Power Party lawmakers had joined the pledge to waive parliamentary immunity. Except for those on overseas trips, virtually all participated. However, Democratic Party lawmaker Ahn Min-seok called it "a kind of political offensive."

Conversely, former People Power Party lawmaker Kim Sung-tae interpreted Lee's declaration to waive immunity as a calculation that the court would dismiss the warrant review. Kim said, "From Lee's perspective, the allegations of North Korea remittances involving Ssangbangwool, which will come to the National Assembly, are relatively less important than Daejang-dong, so even if he undergoes a warrant review, it will be dismissed," adding, "Even if the arrest consent motion passes in the Assembly, wouldn't the court dismiss it during the warrant review?"

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is delivering a negotiation group representative speech at the National Assembly on the 19th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Can the Political Circle Waive Parliamentary Immunity on Their Own?

Given the significant disagreements within the Democratic Party over waiving parliamentary immunity, the political consensus is that the likelihood of actual waiver is low. Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Won-wook, belonging to the non-mainstream faction, argued on the radio on the 23rd that "Lee's waiver of parliamentary immunity should be established as a 100% party line." He pointed out, "It is Lee's presidential candidate pledge. Ultimately, because this pledge was overturned and only bulletproofing was created, trust and support for the Democratic Party have declined."

However, on the same day, former leader Song Young-gil opposed, saying, "We should not waive parliamentary immunity to fight against the prosecutorial dictatorship regime." A major reason is the differing positions of the ruling People Power Party and the opposition Democratic Party. Song criticized the People Power Party, which emphasizes signing the waiver pledge, saying, "They could propose the waiver pledge because they are the ruling party. I hope they will submit it even if they become the opposition."

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