Ruling party pushes through judicial reform bill allowing constitutional complaints against court decisions

Lawmakers vote on the amendment to the Constitutional Court Act at the plenary session of the February extraordinary National Assembly in Seoul, Friday. Yonhap

Korea’s National Assembly on Friday passed a controversial bill allowing constitutional complaints against court rulings, after the ruling bloc moved to end a 24-hour filibuster staged by opposition lawmakers who had denounced the measure as a fundamental shake-up of the country’s judicial order.

The amendment to the Constitutional Court Act, which brings court judgments within the scope of constitutional complaints, was approved at 7:44 p.m. during a plenary session led by the ruling party. The bill passed in a 162-63 vote among 225 lawmakers present, after lawmakers from pro-government parties voted to close debate.

All lawmakers from the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) who were in attendance voted against the bill, joined by a few other lawmakers from minor parties. Legislators from the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) and other pro-government parties overwhelmingly backed the measure.

At the heart of the bill, formally an amendment to the Constitutional Court Act is a plan to permit individuals to file constitutional complaints against finalized court judgments under certain conditions. Even after a Supreme Court ruling, litigants would be able to petition the Constitutional Court if a judgment allegedly infringes on fundamental rights.

The DPK argues that the reform would strengthen the protection of fundamental rights by providing an additional constitutional safeguard when ordinary courts fail to uphold constitutional standards. Supporters also say the measure addresses what they see as a blind spot in the current system, under which court rulings themselves are largely excluded from constitutional complaint review.

The PPP, however, has denounced the proposal as a de facto introduction of a “fourth trial system,” which critics argue runs counter to the Constitution’s design. Opposition lawmakers contend that allowing constitutional complaints against final court judgments undermines the constitutional principle that judicial power resides in the courts and that the Supreme Court serves as the highest court of last resort.

People Power Party lawmaker Kim Hee-jung, center, speaks during a filibuster at the National Assembly in Seoul, Friday, on the court constitutional complaint bill that was introduced the previous day. Yonhap

During the filibuster that continued for about 24 hours, PPP lawmaker Kim Hee-jung argued that Articles 101 and 107 of the Constitution clearly establish the Supreme Court’s authority as the final arbiter of legal disputes, warning that altering this structure through ordinary legislation could be unconstitutional.

Kim also cited overseas examples, noting that in Germany the rate of successful constitutional complaints against court judgments remains around 1 to 2 percent, while Spain has experienced tensions between its Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. In Taiwan, she added, the introduction of a similar mechanism led to a surge in cases but relatively low acceptance rates. According to Kim, the Korean proposal risks prolonging litigation and increasing costs without delivering meaningful relief.

Criticism has not been limited to opposition ranks.

The Supreme Court has submitted written opinions to the National Assembly on several occasions, expressing concerns about the three judicial reform bills. Regarding the constitutional complaint proposal, the top court warned that it would “effectively result in a fourth trial system, leading to delays in proceedings and a surge in appeals.”

Some have warned that the reform could create a “litigation hell,” marked by protracted and repetitive lawsuits that would favor those able to afford steep legal fees while further burdening an already strained justice system.

Within the judiciary, concerns have also surfaced about both the substance of the reforms and the speed of their passage. National Court Administration Minister Park Young-jae tendered his resignation in response to the legislative push, following the passage of the “distortion of law” amendment and ahead of the anticipated approval of the constitutional complaint system and the Supreme Court expansion bills.

A national meeting of chief judges held earlier this week also raised concerns that the bills were being rushed through without sufficient deliberation despite their potentially far-reaching impact on judicial independence and the stability of the court system.

Nevertheless, backed by its parliamentary majority, the DPK pressed ahead with its judicial reform agenda. The legislation marks the second in a package of three flagship measures branded by the party as “judicial reform bills.” On Thursday, the Assembly passed a separate amendment to the Criminal Act creating the controversial new offense of “distortion of law,” despite strong protests from opposition lawmakers.

Following Friday evening’s vote on the second constitutional complaint bill, the DPK immediately introduced its third proposal, which seeks to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 14 to 26. The PPP launched another filibuster in response.

Opposition leaders have framed the broader three-bill package as politically motivated. PPP floor leader Song Eon-seog accused the ruling party of attempting to “manipulate and pressure the judicial system” for its own benefit, calling the reforms an unprecedented effort to reshape the country’s 80-year judicial framework without sufficient public deliberation.