Signs of Prolonged Vacancy in Chief Justice Position... Emergency Supreme Court Justices Meeting This Afternoon

No Regulation on Acting Chief Justice's 'Scope of Authority'... Concerns Over All-Justices Panel and Judicial Personnel Appointments Halt
If Candidate Lee Gyunyong Is Rejected at November Plenary Session, 'Supreme Court Trials' Will Be Practically Impossible

Following the passage of the arrest consent bill for Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, the party's floor leadership resigned en masse, signaling a prolonged vacancy in the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Initially, the appointment consent bill for nominee Lee Gyun-yong was expected to be voted on the 25th, but the plenary session was effectively canceled that day. Since the Chief Justice requires approval from the National Assembly, and the Democratic Party holds a majority, the absence of their cooperation makes it inevitable to maintain an acting Chief Justice system.

According to the legal community, with no plenary session held, the Chief Justice position remains vacant, and the most senior justice, Ahn Cheol-sang, will serve as acting Chief Justice. Under the Court Organization Act, when the Chief Justice position is vacant or the Chief Justice is unable to perform duties due to unavoidable reasons, the senior justice may act on their behalf.

The next scheduled plenary session in the regular National Assembly is on November 9, but through negotiations between ruling and opposition parties, an additional plenary session could be scheduled before the start of the national audit after the Chuseok holiday. The problem arises if no additional plenary session is scheduled and nominee Lee's appointment consent bill is rejected in the November session, which would prolong the Chief Justice vacancy and plunge the judiciary into turmoil.

Although Justice Ahn will serve as acting Chief Justice, there are no clear regulations on the scope of authority for the acting Chief Justice, so the exercise of authority is expected to be limited. For this reason, the Supreme Court has begun reviewing the extent to which the acting Chief Justice can exercise authority. It is reported that the 13 justices will hold an emergency meeting that afternoon to discuss response measures.

At the meeting, topics related to "the scope of authority of the acting Chief Justice" are expected to be discussed, including whether the acting Chief Justice can preside over the full bench and set the schedule for rulings, whether the acting Chief Justice can recommend candidates for justices, and whether the acting Chief Justice can conduct the regular court personnel appointments in February.

First, rulings by the full bench, which must be presided over by the Chief Justice, are expected to be indefinitely postponed. The full bench, composed of the Chief Justice and 12 justices totaling 13 members, is led by the Chief Justice who decides the ruling schedule. Whether the acting Chief Justice can set the schedule for full bench rulings is a matter to be decided through a justices' meeting, so it is highly likely that no full bench rulings will be held until a new Chief Justice is appointed.

The vacancy in the Chief Justice position will also affect the recommendation of candidates for justices and the regular court personnel appointments. Justices Ahn and Min Yoo-sook are set to retire on January 1 next year, and if the Chief Justice position remains vacant until November, the recommendation of candidates for justices cannot be made. If both justices retire without successors, the Supreme Court may be unable to conduct trials. There is no precedent for an acting Chief Justice recommending candidates for justices.

Judicial personnel appointments require deliberation by the personnel committee, approval by the justices' meeting, and appointment by the Chief Justice, who also decides judges' assignments. Therefore, in the absence of a Chief Justice, judicial personnel appointments are practically impossible.

In this situation, depending on the outcome of Lee's warrant review, there is even a possibility of the Democratic Party splitting, which could further delay the approval of the Chief Justice.

A presiding judge A from the Seoul Central District Court said, "It is absurd that the politically independent judiciary has to worry about the prolonged vacancy of the Chief Justice while watching the National Assembly's moves," adding, "Whether the bill passes or fails, a conclusion should be reached as soon as possible to prevent a long vacancy in the Chief Justice position."

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