Prolonged vacuum at Supreme Court

The vacancy of multiple Supreme Court seats marks its 10th day Saturday. When parliament will approve the appointment of four justice candidates who are awaiting confirmation remains unknown amid the main opposition Democratic United Party’s bid to secure partisan interests. Work at one of the subcourts at the Supreme Court has come to a halt because just two of the required quorum for the court remain, or three of four Supreme Court justices. Of the subcourts, the second and third are being operated with just three Supreme Court justices each, and these justices are seeing a mounting burden.

High-profile cases brought to the Supreme Court are being handled by a court comprising all of the justices, including the chief justice. This type of court is held monthly but not this month, something which has delayed the deliberation of four to five cases. This is because though the full-member court can be formed with nine justices, or more than two-thirds of the 13 justices at the Supreme Court, and can open even when up to four justices are absent, operating the court with four justices missing is considered undesirable considering the nature of such an all-member court in which justices can intensely disagree over cases.

The public has the right to a trial in a prompt fashion. If rulings on cases are delayed, the people are the ones who suffer. A detained defendant in a criminal case should have his or her trial finished within six months due to the restriction on the detention period. If the trial is delayed beyond that period, the defendant should be released. A ruling on an election violation at the Supreme Court should be completed within three months from the date of an appellate court’s ruling. In the event of a delay, Kwak No-hyun, superintendent of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, will have his term in office extended further beyond the three months after the appellate court’s ruling that sentenced him to prison, which is apparently unjust.

The National Assembly is to fully blame for the vacuum in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court chief justice referred to the president the appointment of four justice candidates 35 days before the terms of retiring justices expired. But parliament opened more than a month late and only started confirmation hearings for the candidates on the day the outgoing justices retired. The main opposition Democratic United Party is also refusing to adopt a report for the confirmation hearing of justice candidate Kim Byeong-hwa, and is delaying the process for parliamentary approval. If the National Assembly respects the spirit of the separation of power, it should not interrupt the formation of the Supreme Court by delaying the deliberation of bills seeking parliamentary approval of candidates. This is the first time in the history of the Constitution for the Supreme Court to have four justice spots vacant. If Kim is the problem, parliament should submit bills seeking the confirmation of justice candidates Koh Yeong-hwan, Kim Shin and Kim Chang-seok.

The Constitutional Court has also had one justice seat vacant for one full year. The Democratic United Party has not yet exercised its right to recommend the candidate after nominating lawyer Cho Yong-hwan. The party should think deeply about the disruption in the operation of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.