ED Lee, chief justice must end stalemate
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae remains seated as others take an oath to testify during the Legislation and Judiciary Committee audit at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, Tuesday. Newsis
Uphold spirit of Constitution instead of difference in interpretation
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae broke his silence on President Lee Jae Myung's recent request that he recommend another nominee for the top court, saying that the president has no authority to interfere in the recommendation process.
At the National Assembly audit of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Cho cited the separation of powers and judicial independence when he initially refused to testify under oath. The chief justice instead read out a prepared statement, saying "Just as the chief justice cannot interfere in the National Assembly's approval process or the president's appointment process, neither the National Assembly nor the president can interfere in the chief justice's recommendation."
Tuesday's audit offered a rare scene as Cho eventually responded to lawmakers' questions. He also appeared last year, but did not make statements or reply to questions. As a customary practice, previous chief justices have only read prepared statements to address the National Assembly, after which the minister of National Court Administration would respond to questions, in the spirit of respecting judicial independence.
Cho did not testify as an ordinary witness but did state his opinion on the chief justice's authority concerning Supreme Court justice nominations and other questions coming from both the ruling and opposition parties. The questions were highly partisan and politicized, unnecessarily putting the chief justice under scrutiny and in the middle of heated exchanges between lawmakers.
Any effort to resolve the dispute between Cho and Lee regarding the stalled justice nomination surely warrants a more private forum than the public spectacle that erupted at the National Assembly.
For instance, Rep. Son Sol of the Jinbo Party asked Cho whether he intends to become the "second Yoon Suk Yeol," in reference to the former president who was impeached and imprisoned for his botched December 2024 martial law declaration. Cho responded by calling the question "insulting and saddening."
Lee and Cho have been at odds over the Supreme Court justice selection. On Aug. 18, when Cho recommended Sohn Bong-ki, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court, to fill the vacancy left by former Justice Rho Tae-ak, who retired on March 3, the presidential office sent it back and asked for another candidate. Cheong Wa Dae claimed that by only sending a written recommendation without prior consultation with the presidential office, the chief justice did not follow due process.
During the National Assembly audit, Cho said the practice of consulting with the presidential office was merely customary and not a constitutional requirement. In asserting his authority as stipulated under Article 104 of the Constitution, Cho stressed that any intervention in the recommendation process for supreme court justices is unconstitutional. Cho, in an effort to emphasize the independence of the judiciary, used strong wording.
On Tuesday, Cheong Wa Dae again requested Cho recommend a new Supreme Court justice candidate.
It is regrettable to see the president and the chief justice at odds over their diverging interpretation of the Constitution. With both sides seemingly under pressure to hold their respective stances, the delay in naming a new Supreme Court justice is both an inconvenience and a disappointment to the public.
While the separation of powers among the three branches of government remains a solid principle upheld in Korean democracy, there is surely room for the two sides to work through dialogue and consultations. Both uphold the spirit of the Constitution. The chief justice should able to deal with the currents that sometimes come his way, while the governing administration led by the president should be willing to exercise restraint and discipline.
Cho in particular has stood out for his ruling that overturned Lee's acquittal in an election law violation just weeks before the June 2025 snap presidential election following Yoon's impeachment. Since then, the Lee administration has been reportedly moving to nominate more liberal-leaning judges.
Yet, whether the Korean electorate needs to see a public slugfest between the ruling and opposition parties in the presence of a chief justice is another matter. If need be, the issue can be resolved before the Constitutional Court, which is tasked to rule on differences between government institutions. Those watching are silently but genuinely hoping to see common sense take the reins, with the chief justice and the president finding a compromise.