Incomplete Constitutional Court 'Temporary Closure'... Unable to Hold Regular Verdict Session This Month

Ruling and Opposition Parties Criticize 'Serious Case Backlog' at National Audit... Constitutional Court Chief Justice Confirmation Delayed
Accumulated 'Jurisdiction Dispute and Impeachment Trials' in National Assembly... Incomplete Court Faces Difficulty in Important Case Rulings

As the positions of the Chief Justice and Justices of the Constitutional Court remain vacant, it has been confirmed that the Constitutional Court will not be able to deliver its monthly rulings this month. The Constitutional Court has typically held rulings on cases such as constitutional review of laws and constitutional complaints during the last or fourth week of each month.

Former Chief Justice Yoon Nam-seok and constitutional justices are seated for the verdict. Photo by Jin-hyung Kang aymsdream@

According to a comprehensive report by Asia Economy on the 22nd, the Constitutional Court could not hold its regular ruling session this month due to delays in the follow-up appointment process following the retirement of former Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok.

The problem is that without a full bench of nine justices, including the Chief Justice, not only are rulings on important cases delayed, but hearings are also being postponed. All cases handled by the Constitutional Court follow a structure similar to the Supreme Court's plenary session, where 13 Supreme Court Justices deliberate and decide. Typically, hearings proceed with a full panel of nine justices.

According to the Constitutional Court Act, cases can be heard with the attendance of seven or more justices, so hearings can continue even if some positions, including the Chief Justice or other justices, are vacant. However, in cases where opinions on constitutionality sharply diverge, it is difficult to proceed with hearings and reach conclusions. In particular, most important cases, such as rulings on the unconstitutionality of laws, acceptance of constitutional complaints, or impeachment acceptance decisions, require the approval of six or more justices.

Although the law stipulates a quorum of seven or more justices to prepare for temporary vacancies, this is only an exception, and vacancies in constitutional institutions inevitably represent a flaw.

In the legal community, there are concerns that if the Constitutional Court issues rulings on constitutional review or constitutional complaint cases with an incomplete bench, the decisions will be half-hearted. The question is whether petitioners can accept the results of cases where all nine justices did not participate in the hearing and decision.

Currently, the Constitutional Court has a backlog of cases requiring prompt decisions. These include ▲ the authority dispute trial related to the impeachment motion against Broadcasting and Communications Commission Chairman Lee Dong-gwan filed by the People Power Party ▲ a provisional injunction request to prohibit the re-submission of impeachment motions during the regular National Assembly session ▲ an authority dispute trial filed by the National Election Commission regarding the Board of Audit and Inspection’s job inspection ▲ and an impeachment motion against Deputy Chief Prosecutor Andong-wan of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, all awaiting the Court’s judgment. According to the Constitutional Court Act, the Court must deliver a final ruling within 180 days from the date the case is received. However, since this is not a mandatory provision, rulings after 180 days do not pose a legal problem.

Amid the accumulation of urgent cases at the Constitutional Court, the National Assembly has been delaying the adoption of the personnel hearing report for Chief Justice nominee Lee Jong-seok, who has already completed the confirmation hearing, without any clear reason. The appointment of the Chief Justice requires the consent of the National Assembly, and after the adoption of the hearing report, the appointment consent bill must be submitted to the plenary session of the National Assembly and voted on.

During this year’s national audit, both ruling and opposition parties criticized the delay in case handling by the Constitutional Court. While both sides pointed out that hearings and rulings are not being conducted in a timely manner at the Constitutional Court, the highest institution for constitutional litigation, criticism has arisen that the National Assembly is actually obstructing the Court’s prompt adjudication by delaying the confirmation process of the Chief Justice nominee.

An official from the Constitutional Court stated, "The vacancy situation seriously damages the status and independence of the constitutional institution," adding, "For the Constitution to function properly, the vacancy situation or acting authority system must not be prolonged."

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