ED Protect judicial independence

The Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) has once again sparked controversy — this time over actions that critics say threaten the very foundations of democracy. The liberal party has threatened to impeach Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae following a ruling that jeopardizes the political future of its presidential candidate, Lee Jae-myung.

Characterizing the verdict as a “judicial coup,” the DPK has also exerted pressure on the Seoul High Court — which is currently handling Lee’s case — urging it to postpone the trial until after the June 3 presidential election. Critics say this move constitutes a clear violation of the principle of separation of powers.

Rep. Yun Ho-jung, Lee’s chief campaign manager, stated on Monday that the DPK would take “every possible measure” if the court does not delay the trial.

“If the Seoul High Court does not reschedule the deliberation on Lee’s case, currently set for May 15, to a date after the election, the DPK will exercise all means available to us to stop this judiciary coup,” Yun said at a press conference.

His forceful remarks reflect the party’s growing concern that a court ruling ahead of the election could severely damage Lee’s campaign. Although Lee would be able to appeal a conviction, a prolonged legal process would cast a cloud of uncertainty over his candidacy. It remains unclear whether the Supreme Court could finalize a verdict in the retrial before June 3. However, what seems to trouble the DPK most is the potential shift in public sentiment. Risk-averse, centrist voters may be discouraged from supporting a candidate who faces the possibility of disqualification.

On May 1, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision that had cleared Lee of charges under the Public Officials Election Act. The next day, it remanded the case to the Seoul High Court, which swiftly scheduled a new trial for May 15 — raising speculation that a verdict could come before the election. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled against Lee, the lower court’s role is now limited to determining the appropriate penalty.

At the heart of the matter is whether the penalty will be severe enough to disqualify Lee from running. According to current laws, any individual fined 1 million won or more is barred from candidacy for 10 years. This legal threshold, combined with the accelerated timeline, has heightened tensions as the presidential election approaches.

The stakes are high for Lee, whose political future now rests in the hands of the judiciary.

Initially, Lee attempted to downplay the Supreme Court’s ruling. On May 1, he called the verdict “just one of those things that happens,” urging his supporters not to overreact.

However, his tone has noticeably shifted amid growing signs that the judiciary is accelerating the proceedings. On Monday, Lee made an abrupt appeal for “equal opportunity” among all presidential candidates. “Article 116 of the Constitution guarantees equal opportunity for all candidates. I believe this principle must be upheld,” he said.

Since the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s acquittal, the DPK has proposed a series of increasingly aggressive measures. Some members have called for the impeachment of the chief justice. Senior figures within the party have also suggested launching a parliamentary hearing to question members of the judiciary, initiating a National Assembly-led investigation of the Supreme Court, or even appointing an independent counsel to investigate the justices.

In a democratic society, however, the legislature is not expected to interfere with judicial decisions. The separation of powers is a fundamental pillar of democracy, ensuring that the judiciary, executive and legislature operate as equal branches, each providing checks and balances on the others. No branch holds supremacy.

From this perspective, the DPK's attempts to interfere in judicial matters not only appear inappropriate but also highlight a troubling misunderstanding of democratic principles. These actions reflect an outdated belief that legal norms apply selectively — with rules for others, but not for themselves. In a democracy, such an attitude is both unsustainable and unacceptable.

It is worth noting the double standard demonstrated by the DPK in its position. When the Constitutional Court ruled to impeach then-President Yoon Suk Yeol on April 4 for declaring martial law, the DPK praised the decision and urged his supporters to respect the outcome.

Now, the same party appears intent on pressuring the judiciary to align with its political goals, undermining the very principle of judicial independence it once claimed to defend.

The rule of law was instrumental in removing Yoon. It is the same rule of law that now subjects DPK presidential candidate Lee to a fair legal process. The DPK has only one responsible course of action to follow: to respect the decisions of the court.