[Reporter’s Notebook] Constitutional Court Sows Seeds of Distrust

Around noon on the 3rd, a message from the Constitutional Court appeared on the reporter's mobile phone. '2025Hun-Ra1 Oral Argument Resumed (2.10. 2:00 PM)', '2024Hun-Ma1203 Ruling Date Postponed (To Be Announced Later)'. The notice stated that the ruling on the competence dispute and constitutional complaint cases would be postponed, following Acting President and Deputy Prime Minister for Economy Choi Sangmok's decision not to appoint Ma Eunhyeok, Chief Judge of the Seoul Western District Court, as a Constitutional Court justice. The sudden news of the postponement caused a stir in the Constitutional Court's briefing room.

The reporter asked the Constitutional Court spokesperson for the reason. The response was, "I have not received any additional information." When asked again, "Will the reason be explained at the oral argument resumption on the 10th?" the spokesperson could not provide a satisfactory answer. This case began on the 3rd of last month, when National Assembly Speaker Woo Wonshik filed a competence dispute, claiming that Acting President Choi's decision to withhold the appointment infringed upon the National Assembly's right to elect. Since then, the Constitutional Court has moved more quickly than in any other case. Without the usual preparatory procedures, the first oral argument was held less than 20 days after the case was filed, on the 22nd of last month, and the argument was concluded on the same day. The ruling date was set for the 3rd, ten days later, but just two hours before the scheduled announcement, the ruling was 'suddenly' postponed.

The issue of 'whether or not Ma Eunhyeok will be appointed' is critical to whether the Constitutional Court, currently handling the momentous impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk-yeol, can proceed as a 'full panel of nine' or must continue with the current eight-member bench. The outcome would inevitably carry different weight depending on whether there is a vacancy or all nine justices are present. While various speculations and claims are circulating regarding the Constitutional Court's haste in handling the competence dispute?many attributing it to political interests?the primary reason is likely the desire to form a 'complete panel' and reach the best possible conclusion. Only then can the public trust the decision and both parties accept the outcome.

However, the Constitutional Court's actions on this day fell short of such standards. It is rare, even in ordinary trials, to postpone a ruling just hours before the scheduled announcement. Such postponements typically occur only if new facts emerge that could affect the verdict, or if the necessary deliberations have not been completed. In this case, no new facts have come to light. Already, speculation is circulating around the Constitutional Court that the postponement may be a response to controversy in legal and political circles, or that Ma Eunhyeok's appointment is now effectively off the table. Criticism is mounting that the Constitutional Court has brought this mistrust upon itself.

At a briefing on the 31st of last month, the Constitutional Court stated, "We are concerned about the possibility of judicial authority being undermined due to political and media attempts to sway the court." If the Constitutional Court's defense is to remain credible, it must make greater efforts to maintain its own impartiality and stability.

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