The Constitutional Court Thursday rejected a petition brought by outgoing President Roh Moo-hyun, who sought to repeal South Korea's election law barring government officials from making political remarks.
In the ruling, the court said, "It's the exercise of public authority that the National Election Commission calls for neutrality of President Roh Moo-hyun."
Roh, who has attacked the law for violating his freedom of speech, became the first-ever president to file a failed petition with the Constitutional Court last year, after the government watchdog National Election Commission warned him to remain politically neutral ahead of the presidential election in December.
But the Constitutional Court said that the President is also entitled to file a petition with the court, admitting the the President is an individual entity to the basic human rights.
In three public speeches and one media interview he gave in June, Roh openly criticized opposition candidates. Receiving an honorary doctorate from Wonkwang University, Roh denounced the flagship policies of Lee Myung-bak, then front-runner of the Grand National Party, saying "Tax cuts, don't be deceived. And the grand canal project. He says he will do it with investment from the private sector, but would anyone really come and put his money there?"
Referring to Park Geun-hye, another candidate from the Grand National Party and a daughter of late President Park Chung-hee, he said it would be "troublesome" to hear the foreign media say "the South Korean leader is a daughter of a dictator."
His remarks prompted the Grand National Party to file a complaint with the National Election Commission. The watchdog warned Roh against making such remarks, which it said would be influential on the election and thus violated the election law.
Roh consequently filed a petition, saying the election law requiring government officials remain politically neutral breached the freedom to make political expressions that he retains as an individual.
The strict election law has been controversial in South Korea, with many experts and legislators moving to revise it and loosen the ban.
Yet questions remain over whether Roh's petition is warranted. Critics argue that the constitutional petition is entitled only to individuals whose basic rights were violated by the state authority, rather than a president, who they say is part of the state authority. In 1991, the court dismissed a petition by opposition lawmakers, recognizing them as part of the National Assembly.