By Lee Kyung-min
Criticism is mounting against Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae as he continued to ignore calls for judicial reform Friday despite the resignation of a senior judge who demanded that he immediately initiate the long-stalled task.
Yang has been dismissing calls from judges nationwide to clarify allegations that the top court under his direction created a “blacklist of judges.”
The alleged systematic effort was to suppress “anti-conformist” voices within the judiciary by denying promotions to those critical of the judicial administration and Chief Justice Yang. He has about two months before his term ends.
The outrage of judges grew fiercer after an internal investigation concluded there was no such list without searching computers in which password-locked files containing the list were allegedly stored.
A senior judge at the Incheon District Court Choi Han-don said Thursday that he tendered his resignation to Yang a day earlier, hoping the action would prompt him to respond.
Choi is the second judge to have offered to resign in protest, after former senior judge Park Si-hwan did so in 2003 criticizing the seniority-based appointment practice of Supreme Court justices.
“Chief Justice Yang yet again refused to reopen the investigation into the blacklist allegation, citing the same reason. That fundamentally demoralizes judges whose desperate last-ditch efforts to self-reform the judiciary remain gravely challenged,” said Choi in an online community forum of judges.
“I hope my offer to resign, a decision I made out of loyalty, could help Yang change his stance and come up with measures to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate incident,” he added.
Choi’s resignation came a week after he met with the Vice Chairman at the Office of Court Administration (OCA) under the Supreme Court to convince him of the need to thoroughly investigate the allegation, a measure he called crucial to restore lost public faith. The vice chairman has yet to respond.
Choi was elected leader of a five-member fact-finding committee June 19 when more than 100 judges nationwide convened a meeting to discuss measures about the allegation. The second meeting will be attended by 99 judges next Monday.
The committee’s continued requests to the top court on follow-up measures have since been repeatedly denied. It ended up being derailed June 28 when Yang refused to use his authority to reopen the investigation citing customary practice and security protocols.
Choi’s resignation also came amid intensified criticism of Yang following the appointment of the new OCA head Kim So-young, Tuesday, to fill the vacancy after Ko Young-han resigned over his alleged deep involvement in creating the list.
“Choi must have felt an enormous degree of frustration given Yang continues to ignore the judges’ calls and pushed ahead with the appointment of Kim, which is considered a slap-in-the-face show of force,” a judge said on condition of anonymity.
Meanwhile, the resignation is the latest in a series of similar moves by other judges who attended the June 19 meeting.
A judge at Jeonju District Court Cha Sung-ahn posted a message online July 6 calling for public support in collecting signatures to reopen investigation into the blacklist.
On July 4, Nam In-soo, a judge at the Seoul Central District Court called for a National Assembly inspection to search the computers at the OCA.
Meanwhile, Choi stressed that this was the last chance for the top court to eliminate “the illness” in the judiciary.
“Judges all know that former Chief Justice Shin Young-chul finished his term unscathed by the damning allegation in 2009 that he intervened in a district court ruling to suit former President Lee Myung-bak,” he said.
“If we do not deal with the blacklist allegation now, two similar allegations will provide an excuse for judges to stay silent with our ethical, moral standards compromised to the point of no return.”
The trust in the court administration, Choi added, is a condition without which judicial independence is not possible, a value that must be upheld at all costs.
“Allowing an allegation to remain unclear would most definitely entail similar occurrences in the future. Judges will be tempted, pressured and inclined to rule based on economic or political interests rather than conscience. This will result in deep-rooted distrust in the judiciary, a taint hard to recover from.”