Jang Youngha, Gujaeyeok, and Others... Zero Judicial Review Petitions Pass Preliminary Screening in First Month

384 Cases Filed in the First Month, All Dismissed in Preliminary Review
Blocking a “Fourth-Instance Trial” vs. Weakening Relief for Fundamental Rights

Within just one month of the implementation of the 'Judicial Review Petition' system, which allows for constitutional complaints against court rulings, more than 380 cases have been filed. However, it has been revealed that not a single case has yet entered the substantive review stage.

According to the Constitutional Court, as reported by Yonhap News on April 12, a total of 384 judicial review petitions were submitted in the month following the introduction of the system on March 12. If this trend continues, the annual total is projected to reach around 4,600 cases, suggesting the possibility of significantly surpassing last year's total number of constitutional complaints, which stood at 3,066.

However, so far, no case has passed the preliminary review. As of April 7, the Constitutional Court had dismissed all 194 cases through three rounds of preliminary screening. After a petition is filed, a designated panel of three justices determines whether the requirements are met. If a case is deemed inadmissible at this stage, it is concluded without proceeding to a full hearing.

View of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

The most common reason for dismissal was cases that were 'clearly not grounds for a petition.' Under the Constitutional Court Act, judicial review petitions are permitted only in cases involving: ▲ court rulings that contradict Constitutional Court decisions; ▲ violations of due process; or ▲ clear violations of the Constitution or laws that infringe upon fundamental rights. Simple dissatisfaction with a verdict or disputes over facts are not grounds for acceptance.

In practice, cases such as that of lawyer Jang Youngha, who was convicted in a case related to President Lee Jaemyung, and the case of the YouTuber known as Gujaeyeok, who was convicted of extorting money from YouTuber Tzuyang, were all rejected during the preliminary review. The Constitutional Court has made it clear that 'petitions challenging the court's findings of fact or the legitimacy of legal application will not be accepted.'

This standard is seen as a measure to prevent indiscriminate influx of cases and to avoid disruption of judicial order, as well as to address concerns that the judicial review petition could effectively serve as a 'fourth-instance trial.' At the same time, it reflects practical considerations to control a surge in petitions given the limited personnel and capacity of the Court.

However, there are criticisms that the intended purpose of the system—to provide relief for violations of fundamental rights—may not be fully realized. From the perspective of citizens claiming rights violations as a result of court rulings, it is pointed out that the avenue for relief has in effect become narrower.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court continues to make detailed adjustments to the operation of the system. The Court Administration Office under the Supreme Court has formed a research team to review and supplement the system in response to the new petitions. The results of this research are expected to be released within this year.

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