[Inside Chodong] Why Does the Legislation and Judiciary Committee Keep Repeating Flawed Legislation?

Revised Bill Submitted Just One Hour Before Plenary Session: Limits of Democratic Party’s Legislative Process Exposed

Judiciary Committee Led by Hardliners, Lacking Internal Checks

Even Jeong Sye-kyun Blasts His Own Party: "Reduced to a Body

Just one hour before the so-called "Law Distortion Crime" amendment to the Criminal Act was scheduled to be presented at the National Assembly plenary session on February 25, the Democratic Party of Korea submitted a "revised bill" following a general meeting of its lawmakers. As the legislation entered its final stage, problematic clauses were hastily revised in a last-minute rush.

This law, which stipulates punishment for judges or prosecutors who fabricate facts or intentionally misapply the law, has faced concerns about ambiguity since the initial stages of discussion. Both the political sphere and the legal community have expressed fears that, beyond legal principles, the number of lawsuits and complaints will increase. There is concern that dissatisfied parties may file lawsuits or complaints against judges and prosecutors. It is feared that this could open the floodgates to endless litigation, benefiting only lawyers.

Some have pointed out that a framework already exists to hold legal professionals accountable through the crime of abuse of authority, raising questions about the necessity of separate legislation. The judiciary has amended precedents and legal logic to reflect changes in society, but there is now criticism that this new law will force adherence only to established precedents. Furthermore, within the Democratic Party, concerns have been raised that if the ongoing judicial reforms are completed, the police—which would be responsible for investigating law distortion crimes—could end up investigating not only prosecutorial indictments and judicial independence, but even the decisions of Constitutional Court justices.

What is concerning is that such hasty lawmaking is becoming increasingly normalized. In September of last year, the National Assembly Testimony and Appraisal Act, in December, the Special Court for Insurrection Act and Information and Communications Network Act, and in March of this year, the National Referendum Act, were all revised by the Democratic Party right before the plenary session. This amounts to the party admitting to flaws or deficiencies in the legislative process, a matter of national importance.

The persistent source of these problems has been the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Known as the "upper house," the Judiciary Committee not only reviews legal structures within its jurisdiction, but also exercises authority to scrutinize the wording and coherence of bills, catching issues such as unconstitutional provisions or conflicts with other laws in bills passed by other standing committees. It serves as the final gatekeeper preventing problematic legislation from reaching the plenary session. However, the problem is that the Judiciary Committee itself, which should be catching legislative flaws, has become the epicenter of shoddy lawmaking controversies.

When hardliners within the Judiciary Committee push aggressive agendas under the pretext of reform, they become uncontrollable. Whether the objections are unreasonable or reasonable criticisms, minority voices are often forcefully silenced or restricted. Since September of last year, the abnormal situation of having no opposition secretary to negotiate schedules or agendas between negotiation groups has persisted.

The party leadership, which should be guiding the Judiciary Committee with a broader perspective, has also failed to rein in its actions. If anything, it feels as though the party leadership is tiptoeing around the committee. Internal checks within the party do not function. Even rational counterarguments are voiced with caution in front of hardliners emboldened by the support of the party's most fervent base, angered at the judiciary. At general meetings, when Judiciary Committee hardliners call for the cause of reform, applause is given upfront, but behind the scenes, heads are shaken in disapproval.

Because of these dynamics, it often takes intervention from civil society, the government, and even the presidential office for the party to reluctantly make last-minute revisions to bills just before the plenary session. The lack of thorough legislative deliberation, confirmation bias that ignores the rationality of opposing views, and the loss of dialogue and compromise all contribute to the proliferation of "flawed legislation."

Former National Assembly Speaker Chung Sye-kyun, who recently visited the National Assembly, criticized the Judiciary Committee for disregarding the tradition of handling matters by consensus, stating, "This is not normal" and added, "The National Assembly is supposed to be the legislative branch, but it has been reduced to a law-enforcing branch." The political world must reflect on why a veteran statesman would go so far as to admonish his own side.

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