[Reporter’s Notebook] A Judge’s Plea: “Please Protect the Judiciary”

"Please protect the judiciary from being shaken."

A few days ago, as I was finishing a call with a judge from a metropolitan court, I heard an unexpected request from the other end of the line. The judge, who had initially been reluctant to speak with reporters, saying, "I usually don't talk to journalists," made this statement, which was a clear sign of his desperation.

Recently, the judiciary has been at the center of intense political controversy. Proposals have emerged to establish a special court for insurrection cases, along with ruling party claims of "the supremacy of elected power," and even demands for Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae to resign. In the past, an impeachment motion against a Chief Justice was attempted only once, during the Chun Doo-hwan regime, but it was rejected by the National Assembly. It is highly unusual for such demands, which failed to materialize even under military rule, to resurface in the political arena after democratization. It is no wonder that incumbent judges now sigh, saying, "We must be even more cautious with our words." There is growing anxiety within the courts that even a single comment could cast doubt on the fairness of trials themselves.

Of course, it would be unfair to blame only external pressure; the judiciary's own self-image is not entirely spotless. The judiciary has failed to demonstrate true self-correction, and there have been repeated cases where it could not be said to have maintained its independence. In May, the Supreme Court handled President Lee Jaemyung's violation of the Public Official Election Act with unusual speed, raising suspicions of "political considerations."

These internal suspicions ultimately provide justification for aggressive attacks from the political establishment. Among the hardline supporters of the ruling party who back President Lee, criticism of judicial authority has escalated to the point of ridicule and mockery, turning it into a form of entertainment. However, it is questionable whether there is sufficient justification for the judiciary to be subject to such attacks at this time. Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has emphasized "resolving trial delays" as his first priority upon taking office, presenting the 6-3-3 principle for election law trials. The prevailing view in legal circles is that the presidential election trial was expedited as part of this initiative, in order to quell controversy before the presidential election. Regarding allegations of a "pre-martial law meeting" raised by a ruling party lawmaker's office, former Prime Minister Han Ducksoo and others have denied any meeting with Chief Justice Cho, fueling widespread commentary that these are "baseless suspicions."

The current situation, in which elected officials damage the judiciary without reasonable grounds, ironically underscores the necessity of the separation of powers. A presiding judge from a Seoul district court strongly criticized, "The ruling party now seems to envision a structure with the president and ruling party at the top, and 'judicial administration' positioned beneath them." This did not sound like an exaggeration.

The separation of powers is a constitutional safeguard against the abuse of authority. Article 103 of the Constitution states, "Judges shall rule independently according to their conscience, in accordance with the Constitution and the law," precisely to maintain this balance. While constitutional scholars acknowledge the tension between judicial independence and democratic oversight, there is broad consensus that any attempt to subjugate the judiciary by the power of one branch directly contradicts the balance intended by the Constitution. What threatens democracy now is not the judiciary, but the party and elected powers that shake the judiciary without grounds or justification.