By Jun Ji-hye
The Constitutional Court's unprecedented decision to disband the leftist Unified Progressive Party (UPP) and strip the party's five lawmakers of their seats has prompted a range of reactions from legal experts.
Some have welcomed the decision as "fair", and a move to protect the nation from a rebellious power faction that threatened the basic democratic order provided for by the Constitution.
However, critics say that the decision has damaged the nation's democracy, and describe it in terms of evidence of tyranny by the majority over the minority.
The Constitutional Court Friday ordered the dissolution of the UPP with an overwhelming 8-1 vote against what the judicial body's President Park Han-chul said was organizing activities with the hidden goal of creating a Communist country like North Korea.
Prof. Lee Yung-hyeock, who teaches police science at Konkuk University, supported the decision, saying it meant the nation will no longer allow any groups to promote a North Korea-like system in the country.
"The overwhelming majority have voted in favor of disbandment, which means the matter should not be seen as ideological conflict," he said, Sunday.
"The party has so far enjoyed rights of using the space of the National Assembly and receiving state subsidies that came from tax payers' money. The court's decision meant the nation will no longer offer such privileges to those who threaten the existence of the nation."
Lee added that the court gave the top priority to preservation of the state system.
On the other hand, lawyer Chang Jin-young opposed the decision, citing lack of sufficient evidence to prove the party violated the democratic order.
"The top court can order disbandment of a political party only when its goal and activities violate the Constitution," said Chang.
"The party platform, which contains its goal, doesn't seem to have major problematic points. Regarding the activities, many seem to believe that Revolutionary Organization (RO) had conspired to overthrow the state, but the Seoul High Court decided in August that RO is not a substantial group. All things considered, the decision by the Constitutional Court is unconvincing," he said.
RO is an underground group that was believed to have been led by Lee Seok-ki who lost his parliamentary seat following Friday's decision. Lee was convicted in February this year of conspiring to support a North Korean takeover of the South. His case is now at the Supreme Court with a final ruling due in January.
The two experts were also divided over whether it was the right decision to remove seats from the lawmakers. The conflicting opinions came as the Constitution has no particular contents regarding the position of lawmakers of a disbanded party.
For its latest decision, the top court cited a case of Germany that striped seats of lawmakers when it disbanded the Communist Party in 1956.
Prof. Lee said, "If lawmakers of the disbanded party maintain their seats, it will tarnish the meaning and fundamental purpose of disbandment. I believe that the top court made a logical decision."
Lawyer Chang disagreed, saying it is doubtful whether eight Constitutional Court justices who voted in favor of the disbandment had a sufficient discussion about deprivation.
"In particular, the three who were elected lawmakers have representativeness of voters in their constituencies. It is very doubtful whether the justices who were not selected by voters have rights to control those who were chosen by the public," Chang said. "The court seemed to have overstepped its authority. It had better let the National Assembly make a decision on its own."
Prof. Lee shot back, "All the decisions made by the top court were based on the Constitution. Justices did not create anything. The Constitution itself is the will of the people."
For their part, the five former lawmakers said Sunday that they have decided to file a lawsuit against the government to nullify the decision to strip their parliamentary seats.
"The Constitutional Court has no authority to divest us of our seats as there is no legal basis," said the five in their statement.
Follow Jun Ji-hye on Twitter @TheKopJihye
The Constitutional Court's unprecedented decision to disband the leftist Unified Progressive Party (UPP) and strip the party's five lawmakers of their seats has prompted a range of reactions from legal experts.
Some have welcomed the decision as "fair", and a move to protect the nation from a rebellious power faction that threatened the basic democratic order provided for by the Constitution.
However, critics say that the decision has damaged the nation's democracy, and describe it in terms of evidence of tyranny by the majority over the minority.
The Constitutional Court Friday ordered the dissolution of the UPP with an overwhelming 8-1 vote against what the judicial body's President Park Han-chul said was organizing activities with the hidden goal of creating a Communist country like North Korea.
Prof. Lee Yung-hyeock, who teaches police science at Konkuk University, supported the decision, saying it meant the nation will no longer allow any groups to promote a North Korea-like system in the country.
"The overwhelming majority have voted in favor of disbandment, which means the matter should not be seen as ideological conflict," he said, Sunday.
"The party has so far enjoyed rights of using the space of the National Assembly and receiving state subsidies that came from tax payers' money. The court's decision meant the nation will no longer offer such privileges to those who threaten the existence of the nation."
Lee added that the court gave the top priority to preservation of the state system.
On the other hand, lawyer Chang Jin-young opposed the decision, citing lack of sufficient evidence to prove the party violated the democratic order.
"The top court can order disbandment of a political party only when its goal and activities violate the Constitution," said Chang.
"The party platform, which contains its goal, doesn't seem to have major problematic points. Regarding the activities, many seem to believe that Revolutionary Organization (RO) had conspired to overthrow the state, but the Seoul High Court decided in August that RO is not a substantial group. All things considered, the decision by the Constitutional Court is unconvincing," he said.
RO is an underground group that was believed to have been led by Lee Seok-ki who lost his parliamentary seat following Friday's decision. Lee was convicted in February this year of conspiring to support a North Korean takeover of the South. His case is now at the Supreme Court with a final ruling due in January.
The two experts were also divided over whether it was the right decision to remove seats from the lawmakers. The conflicting opinions came as the Constitution has no particular contents regarding the position of lawmakers of a disbanded party.
For its latest decision, the top court cited a case of Germany that striped seats of lawmakers when it disbanded the Communist Party in 1956.
Prof. Lee said, "If lawmakers of the disbanded party maintain their seats, it will tarnish the meaning and fundamental purpose of disbandment. I believe that the top court made a logical decision."
Lawyer Chang disagreed, saying it is doubtful whether eight Constitutional Court justices who voted in favor of the disbandment had a sufficient discussion about deprivation.
"In particular, the three who were elected lawmakers have representativeness of voters in their constituencies. It is very doubtful whether the justices who were not selected by voters have rights to control those who were chosen by the public," Chang said. "The court seemed to have overstepped its authority. It had better let the National Assembly make a decision on its own."
Prof. Lee shot back, "All the decisions made by the top court were based on the Constitution. Justices did not create anything. The Constitution itself is the will of the people."
For their part, the five former lawmakers said Sunday that they have decided to file a lawsuit against the government to nullify the decision to strip their parliamentary seats.
"The Constitutional Court has no authority to divest us of our seats as there is no legal basis," said the five in their statement.
Follow Jun Ji-hye on Twitter @TheKopJihye
![[INTERVIEW] Virtual K-pop group MAVE: is more than just pretty pixels](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/bcc387606cf7451c94f51a5978960c9f.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Seoul's increased art market momentum brings Sotheby's back to Korea](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/93259cb47e834f38964ac4aa883b57cf.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
