Confirmation Hearing for Constitutional Court Chief Nominee: People Power Party Alleges Political Bias, Democrats Emphasize Human Rights Commitment

Kim Sanghwan Faces Confirmation Hearing in National Assembly
Allegations of Political Bias, Gap Investments, and Supreme Court Expansion Bill Spark Debate

The National Assembly held a confirmation hearing for Kim Sanghwan, nominee for Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, on the 21st, where issues such as Kim's alleged political bias, suspicions of gap investment, and the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court justice expansion bill were brought to the forefront.

Kim Sanghwan, nominee for Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, is answering questions at the confirmation hearing held at the National Assembly on the 21st. Photo by Kim Hyunmin

Seo Beomsoo, a lawmaker from the People Power Party, pointed out during the confirmation hearing that Kim sided with the majority opinion for acquittal in the Supreme Court's full bench ruling on the Public Official Election Act case involving Lee Jaemyung, then Governor of Gyeonggi Province, in July 2020. Seo stated, "If Lee Jaemyung, now President, had not received an acquittal opinion from you at that time, do you think he would have nominated you as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court? There are cases that will be brought before the Constitutional Court in the future, and I believe this nomination is a reward for saving his political career before, as well as an appointment made in return for a favor."

Kim firmly responded, "I have no personal relationship with Lee."

Woo Jaejun, another People Power Party lawmaker, remarked, "There are too many members of the Woori Law Research Society and the International Human Rights Law Research Society at the Constitutional Court," adding, "There could be concerns about political bias."

On the other hand, Jin Sunmi, a lawmaker from the Democratic Party, voiced support for Kim, stating, "I believe that those who have continuously studied and reflected on issues such as the International Human Rights Law Society should naturally become Constitutional Court justices."

Jin further said, "There are areas?such as children's rights, disability rights, and social rights?that do not yet meet international human rights standards. For these aspects to be further realized, the Constitutional Court's rulings must deliver important messages that prompt the people of Korea to reconsider the ideals and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution."

In response, Kim said, "I strongly agree," and added, "When I worked as a researcher at the Constitutional Court, I heard from the first group of justices that, at that time, people who were active in real-world politics?including both ruling and opposition politicians?joined the court, and this greatly contributed to the richness of early debates and the diversity of thought at the Constitutional Court."

Opposition lawmakers also raised suspicions regarding Kim's gap investment activities. Yoo Youngha, a People Power Party lawmaker, said, "Anyone can make gap investments and grow their real estate holdings. The issue is that you selectively invested only in complexes that were undergoing or scheduled for reconstruction."

To this, Kim replied, "It may sound like an excuse, but I can say with certainty that I did not make gap investments with full knowledge that the apartments were slated for reconstruction."

Regarding the Supreme Court justice expansion bill being promoted by the Democratic Party, lawmakers from both parties presented arguments for and against. Lee Geontae, a Democratic Party lawmaker, pointed out that, based on an analysis of the initial postings of Supreme Court justices appointed over the past 10 years, 44.1% were assigned to the Seoul Central District Court. He argued, "This shows how much the Supreme Court favors elites. To solve this problem, we need to increase the number of Supreme Court justices." In contrast, Jang Donghyuk of the People Power Party countered, "Even if an increase in the number of justices is needed, if we are not careful in deciding how many to add and when, the Supreme Court will only become more politicized."

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