Democratic Party Resolves to Waive Immunity from Arrest Conditionally on 'Valid Warrant' (Comprehensive)

Democratic Party Holds Party Meeting, Concludes to Waive Immunity from Arrest
Leaves Clause for Legitimate Warrant Requests
Effectiveness Due to 'Anonymous Voting' to Be Confirmed in Future Vote

The Democratic Party of Korea resolved on the 18th to waive the parliamentary immunity from arrest for its members. This means they will relinquish immunity in cases of ‘legitimate warrant requests.’ It has been almost a month since the party’s Innovation Committee proposed this reform plan.

Kim Han-gyu, the Democratic Party floor spokesperson, told reporters after the party meeting on the same day, "We reached a consensus to waive the parliamentary immunity of members regarding legitimate warrant requests." Park Kwang-on, the Democratic Party floor leader, had requested the resolution to waive immunity at both the previous and the current party meetings.

At the party meeting on the 13th, the Democratic Party sought opinions on waiving parliamentary immunity but failed to adopt a resolution due to issues such as relinquishing constitutional rights. Kim explained, "At the last meeting, there was an opinion that the constitutional significance of parliamentary immunity should be understood not as a personal privilege but as a device to protect against unjust administrative power." This indicates that there were differing views within the Democratic Party on waiving immunity, not merely from the perspective of a ‘bulletproof parliament’ but also in terms of constitutional rights.

However, as no conclusion was reached on waiving consent for arrest, the Democratic Party faced public backlash. In response, 31 party members resolved to waive parliamentary immunity, and the largest intra-party group, The Better Future, urged the party meeting to reach a conclusion on waiving immunity.

Regarding internal opinions, Floor Leader Park said, "Considering the public’s expectations of the Democratic Party and the moral legitimacy the party must restore, I expressed the position that the party should accept such a resolution," adding, "I explained the discussions so far, and since no one expressed particular dissent, we gathered the overall opinion and agreed that the Democratic Party will waive immunity for legitimate warrant requests."

Park Kwang-on, floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is performing the national ceremony at the members' meeting held at the National Assembly on the 30th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

However, controversy remains over the standards for ‘legitimate warrant requests’ chosen by the Democratic Party.

Spokesperson Kim said, "The standard is the public’s perspective," adding, "If the public does not judge a warrant request as particularly exceptional or unjust, then immunity should be waived." He explained, "It is meaningless to mention specific procedures or cases in detail; in the future, when a warrant request arises, whether it is legitimate will be easily judged by public opinion." While the principle is to waive consent for arrest, an arbitrary standard based on public opinion remains.

Regarding whether the party’s stance was officially adopted, the Democratic Party explained, "It has not gone through the official party endorsement process," but added, "We gathered the consensus of the members."

Not all proposals from the Innovation Committee were accepted. Earlier, the ‘Kim Eun-kyung Innovation Committee’ demanded on the 23rd of last month, as its first reform proposal, that all Democratic Party members waive parliamentary immunity and that the party adopt a stance to approve consent for arrest motions. Regarding the Innovation Committee’s demand to adopt approval of consent for arrest motions as the party’s official stance if such motions arise, Spokesperson Kim said, "We decided to respect and follow the Innovation Committee’s proposals, but it is difficult to follow the suggested methods exactly." However, he added, "Since we have gathered opinions that sufficiently sympathize with and respect the Innovation Committee’s intent, I think the public will judge based on the results of the next consent for arrest motion."

Issues regarding effectiveness also remain. Spokesperson Kim explained, "Consent for arrest motions are decided by secret ballot," adding, "Regardless of the format, it ultimately depends on individual members’ choices. Even if it is decided as the party’s stance, the party cannot guarantee the outcome." However, he said, "Since there is a consensus that parliamentary immunity should be waived, there is no need for a coercive method, and I believe that when consent for arrest motions come to the National Assembly in the future, members will make judgments that meet the public’s expectations."

Previously, the Democratic Party experienced many twists and turns before deciding to waive parliamentary immunity. After the Innovation Committee’s reform demands were made public, the Democratic Party’s Supreme Council expressed partial willingness to accept reforms by stating that it would not convene a so-called ‘bulletproof parliament’ to block consent for arrest motions during the extraordinary session and would not reject such motions even during the session. However, the Innovation Committee pressured again for acceptance of reforms by demanding all members pledge to waive immunity.

The breakthrough came when Kim Eun-kyung, chair of the Democratic Party Innovation Committee, mentioned at a press briefing on the 12th, "We did not mean to ask members to waive immunity against unjust prosecutorial power." This opened the door to exercising parliamentary immunity against unjust consent for arrest motions. The recent party meeting’s approval was basically based on this guideline.

The Innovation Committee welcomed the Democratic Party’s meeting results, stating, "It appears to be a willingness not to exercise parliamentary immunity in principle except in cases judged as illegitimate from the public’s perspective," and added, "The consensus among all Democratic Party members to waive parliamentary immunity marks the beginning of relinquishment for reform, and we believe they will demonstrate this through future actions."

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