The Grand National Party's plan to reform the nation's judicial branch is controversial at best. At its worst, the ruling party's ``improvement plan'' is an oxymoronic joke, raising doubts about not just the authors' judgments but their mentalities.
Almost all parties concerned, including the political opposition and even some within the governing party, not to speak of the judicature itself, are pointing out the GNP's ideas have not a few unconstitutional elements and can seriously threaten the very foundation of democracy ― the separation of three powers.
The plan calls for, among other things, increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 14 to 24 to help ease their caseloads.
Given the current workload of the highest judges, each of whom has to handle about 2,700 cases a year, even redoubling their quorum would not be a fundamental solution. A much better idea is to establish tribunals for final appeals at appellate courts, or set up more Supreme Courts in major areas. This is how advanced countries deal with the caseload problems with the similar numbers of top judges to Korea's, as seen in the United States (nine), Britain (12) and Japan (15).
Critics suspect ― with reason ― the GNP's ultimate motive is to sharply ``water down'' the ideological propensity of incumbent judges appointed in the previous liberal administration, as it can't wait until some of their tenures are over. Changing one of the state's most basic institutions, such as the structure of its top court, should not be decided by an administration's adherence to power.
Nor does the GNP plan allow the lower-echelon judges to make rulings on their own convictions and stay free from outside influence, including political pressure, by setting up a personnel management committee of nine members, six of whom are named by people other than justices, that is, the justice minister as well as representatives of lawyers and law professors.
When it comes to another idea of the governing party, which calls for placing a panel presenting guidelines on verdicts under the direct control of the President, one can't help but ask why this country should need a separate judicial branch instead of letting the party in power make, administer and enforce laws all by itself.
Most surprisingly, it took only two months for the GNP task force to come up with the so-called reform plan, without any consultations with the judicature.
It's only natural, therefore, a Supreme Court spokesman, while expressing dissatisfaction with both ``method'' and ``content'' of the reform process, said, ``The GNP plan lacks the minimal dose of courtesy and consideration for the judicial branch.''
Of course, the judicature is neither without problems nor capable of curing them without outside help ― or intervention ― which is how a democracy is supposed to work through checks and balances among the three branches of the state. For instance, the court's closed administrative system sticking to ``pure blood'' will need to undergo an overhaul to let in more ``fresh blood'' from the initial selection of judges to their management afterwards.
But the way the governing party approaches this, it should rather be called a plan to ``regulate'' or ``subordinate'' the judicial branch to the power elite. It must not be a coincidence the GNP launched its ad hoc team in the wake of a series of court rulings that disfavored the conservative administration in political-sensitive cases, with judges handing down not-guilty verdicts to the opponents of the Lee Myung-bak administration.
The governing party says its plan reflects the ``popular wishes'' for court reform, and the judicature should not interfere with the National Assembly's legislative right, which must be little more than a self-serving harangue, given the cold response from the public and fierce opposition from all other parties.
On Friday, the Supreme Court will unveil its self-reform package, which must serve as the starting point for all parties involved to cooperate, and not conflict, with one another for a genuine debate.