By Lee Kyung-min
A senior judge has floated the idea of a National Assembly audit of the judiciary as a viable alternative to an investigation by the prosecution into a case of alleged high-level abuse of power. This comes amid heightened concern from a senior group of judges about a probe by prosecutors which they fear would wildly undermine judicial authority. Seoul Central District Court head Min Joung-kie said at a press conference last week that the issue could be resolved through an Assembly investigation that could remove the judges involved from office via an impeachment process. Suspension from duty would be the heaviest punishment within the judiciary.
The remarks came amid extremely polarized opinion within age- and rank-divided groups within the judiciary over whether the allegation requires an investigation by the prosecution and a further internal probe, or a broad “future-oriented resolution.” The latter would focus on preventative measures instead of “due accountability” after identifying individual judges and their activities in detail as well as the involvement of higher-ranking justices _ possibly former Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae.
The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Yang, allegedly delivered verdicts favorable to the administration on politically sensitive trials in exchange for the establishment of what would have been a de facto “Second Supreme Court.” This was Yang's top initiative to help lower the workload of top court justices and help many senior judges nearing retirement retain their prestigious high-ranking public posts longer.
Officials at the Office of Court Administration (OCA) under the top court are alleged to have made detailed plans to curry favor with the 2013-17 Park Geun-hye administration, evidenced by 410 documents in computers used by only a handful of officials that were reviewed by an internal committee, after two earlier bodies were denied access. The top court-supervised body consists only of a top-performing elite group of judges, posted with a “guaranteed” prospect of promotion.
Fact-finding efforts should precede any discussions over punitive measures, Min implied, considering the disputable nature of the allegation including whether the OCA officials took steps to implement alleged efforts and the degree to which they progressed. Questioning the officials involved at the National Assembly hearing will largely clarify the allegation, given the authority granted to lawmakers to call in witnesses and request the written submission of evidence.
The entire proceedings will be fully disclosed to the public, helping it guarantee objectivity. The proceedings can and will be initiated upon request from a quarter of the 299-member National Assembly _ which will be finalized after the June 13 local election.
Impeachment proceedings for OCA officials or higher-ranking judges will follow, if the investigation uncovers grave law violations or other criminally liable behavior. The motion can be tabled with the request of a third of the sitting lawmakers, and will pass with a majority vote in a meeting of attending lawmakers. Impeachment will be finalized following a review by the Constitutional Court.
Meanwhile, a liberal group of judges are scheduled to meet, today, in the latest conference organized since the allegation emerged late last month. The group is expected to recommend a thorough criminal investigation, countering arguments of its senior counterparts that allowing prosecution intervention could set a “bad precedent” resulting in degradation of judiciary. They deem it a “necessary evil” to completely sever ties from past misdeeds.