By Cho Jae-hyon
People Team Editor

The Constitution is meant to protect people's rights and the Constitutional Court exists to uphold its spirit based on the premise that all power comes from the people.

Last Thursday, it delivered a ruling on the contentious media laws designed to grant family-controlled chaebol and big newspaper companies the right to virtually control broadcasting companies.

The nine-member constitutional chamber admitted procedural flaws in the process of railroading the media bills by the governing Grand National Party in the National Assembly in July.

The illegalities acknowledged by the court include proxy votes cast by some ruling lawmakers, the revote following the first vote's failure to meet a quorum, and the infringement on voting and deliberation rights of opposition lawmakers.

Yet, it concluded that the procedural illegalities are "not grave enough" to make the laws invalid. So the laws went effective beginning Sunday.

The ruling runs counter to the common sense that the process matters more than the result. Unlawful methods and procedures cannot be justified no matter how noble their ends are. Its self-contradictory ruling has unleashed a flood of satirical comments on the Internet, with netizens making a mockery of the judges.

Among the comments are parodies of what the judges might have said in making the rulings: "I gave birth to you, but I'm not your mother"; "I embezzled funds, but my ownership of the money is valid"; "I stole it, but it's not theft"; and so on.

These sarcastic public reactions reflect their disappointment and frustration with the nation's top tribunal.

What's the raison d'etre of the court? Its Web site states that it exists to "fully protect the people's fundamental rights and effectively check governmental powers," with its key functions including deciding on the constitutionality of laws.

The highest judicial body's primary job lies in guarding people's rights against any political interests. Do the justices know that?

They have been appointed to the seats after being recommended by different presidents and different political parties. Regardless of to whom they owe their positions, they are supposed to make rulings for the sake of the people's rights, not for those who helped them secure the top judiciary job.

They concluded that the media laws are "passed illegally but valid." This funny and paradoxical conclusion, obviously politically motivated, is a betrayal of trust and dereliction of their duty.

By failing to invalidate the illegally passed laws, they gave up on their primary job ― to decide on the constitutionality of laws.

Do they know about conscience ― the inner sense to discern what is right and wrong? If they do, do they allow it to guide them in their acts of judging? Or are they just so blockheaded that this inner voice means nothing to them?

Their irresponsible, gutless ruling left quite a bad precedent: Procedural flaws will be tolerated as long as they are committed by a majority of lawmakers.

Cowardly refusing to nullify the illegally passed laws, the court said it is now up to the assembly to determine whether to renegotiate or keep them afloat. If a law is legislated in breach of the National Assembly Law, what's the use of the Law?

As pretty much expected, the ruling camp, turning a blind eye to the court's acknowledgement of illegalities, is refusing to talk with opposition parties, only stressing the part about the laws' validity.

Upon a visit from a group of angry opposition Democratic Party members Tuesday, Speaker Kim Hyung-o, from the ruling party, scoffed at their demands that he mediate renegotiations with the ruling party. They ended up exchanging barbs. GNP floor leader Ahn Sang-soo and other senior members are also ignoring the court's call for renegotiations.

The ruling camp is as arrogant as the court is cowardly. In this country, everything seems to be slipping away from the hands of those we put in the parliament.

That's why we need justices at the Constitutional Court who are courageous enough to ignore political pressure and conscientious enough to check the stupidity of the lawmakers.

With the ruling that discounted the unconstitutionality of the process of passing the laws, the court dealt a substantial blow to its authority as the nation's top tribunal.

The Constitutional Court was established in 1987 to put into practice the constitutional spirit of protecting people's rights following the pro-democracy movement against the then-authoritarian regime.

However, it is acting contrary to the mission. It is not built to advocate the ruling party's acts of governance or to make rulings defying common sense. If it fails to serve to protect principles of democracy, for whom does it exist?

chojh@koreatimes.co.kr