How far does Han Deok-su's authority extend... Ruling party: "No constitutional court justice appointment power," Opposition: "No veto power"

Sharp Differences Between Ruling and Opposition Parties Over Constitutional Court Justice Appointment and Reconsideration Request Rights

After the impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk-yeol passed the National Assembly, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo became the third acting president and prime minister in the history of the constitutional government. Interestingly, the ruling and opposition parties have taken different stances on Han's exercise of authority depending on the issue.

Kwon Seong-dong, Acting Party Leader and Floor Leader of the People Power Party, is speaking at the floor strategy meeting held at the National Assembly on the 17th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min

People Power Party: Appointment of Constitutional Court Justices Not Allowed, but Veto Power Should Be Exercised

On the 17th, Kwon Seong-dong, floor leader of the People Power Party, stated at the floor strategy meeting regarding the appointment of three currently vacant Constitutional Court justices, "The acting president may appoint Constitutional Court justices in the event of a presidential vacancy, but should not be allowed to do so during a presidential suspension." He argued that in a vacancy situation where the president cannot return to duty, the acting president can exercise the appointment right, but in a suspension situation where the president can return to duty, the appointment right should be restricted.

However, Kim Sang-hoon, chairman of the People Power Party Policy Committee, who spoke after Kwon, argued that the acting president should exercise the right to request reconsideration (veto power). Regarding the amendment to the Act on Testimony and Appraisal in the National Assembly, which passed with opposition party members alone, Kim urged, "The acting president must exercise the right to request reconsideration against such legislative tyranny."

Democratic Party: Appointment of Constitutional Court Justices Should Be Made, but Veto Power Should Not Be Exercised

The position of the Democratic Party is completely opposite.

Park Chan-dae, the floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is speaking at the floor strategy meeting held at the National Assembly on the 17th. Photo by Kim Hyun-min

Park Chan-dae, floor leader of the Democratic Party, called the claim that the acting president's appointment is restricted during presidential suspension "absurd." Cheon Ha-ram, floor leader of the Reform New Party, also mentioned on social media (SNS) that "the constitutional provisions do not distinguish the scope of authority of the acting president according to vacancy or suspension."

However, they showed a different reaction regarding the acting president's veto power. Park warned, "The acting president is not the president," adding, "There are forecasts that the acting president will exercise veto power over bills passed by the National Assembly. If this is true, it seems there is a big misunderstanding."

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