Supreme Court calls for safeguards as ruling bloc pushes to strip prosecutors of supplementary investigative powers

The Supreme Court has said adequate safeguards must be put in place as the ruling bloc moves to abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigative powers.

According to People Power Party lawmaker Shin Dong-wook on Sunday, the Supreme Court's Court Administration Office recently submitted a review opinion to the National Assembly on proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act — jointly sponsored by Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Kim Yong-min and Rebuilding Korea Party lawmaker Park Eun-jeong — that would eliminate those powers.

It marks the first time the judiciary has formally weighed in on the supplementary investigative powers issue, a central point of contention in the ruling bloc's push for prosecution reform and the broader realignment of investigative authority between prosecutors and police.

The proposed amendments would abolish prosecutors' direct investigative authority and supplementary investigative powers, leaving only the power to request supplementary investigation.

They would also eliminate prosecutors' authority to direct special judicial police officers and restrict prosecutors from directly applying for warrants.

On those provisions, the Court Administration Office said the question of realigning authority among investigative agencies is a matter of legislative policy that should be decided only after the National Assembly carefully examines the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed changes and hears a wide range of views from the public and experts.

However, the office added that "sufficient supplementary measures to prevent side effects that may arise from the institutional changes must also be prepared."

The office also addressed a provision that would have district courts' indictment review panels deliberate on the appropriateness of decisions to bring charges, saying prosecutorial decisions to indict can be adequately checked through trial proceedings, while decisions not to indict can be challenged through reappeal applications.

It warned, however, that if courts were to organize and operate such panels, judges handling subsequent trials or reappeal applications might find it difficult to reach conclusions different from those of the panels, potentially influencing judicial outcomes. The office said thorough research and careful review were needed before any such system was introduced.

The Court Administration Office expressed support for provisions that would introduce a conditional detention and release system at both the investigation stage and in-court detention, as well as a pre-issuance judicial hearing procedure for search and seizure warrants.

The office reasoned that a conditional release system at the investigation stage would strengthen the presumption of innocence, the principle of investigation without detention, and trial-centered proceedings, while overcoming the current limitation of a binary choice between detention and non-detention.

On the introduction of pre-issuance hearings for search and seizure warrants, the office gave a positive assessment, noting that under the current written-review process there had been no way to resolve questions or conduct additional examination when doubts arose about the requirements, targets or scope of a warrant. It said pre-issuance hearings would give judges adequate means to conduct thorough reviews and create conditions for more careful judicial judgment.

The office also said the change was expected to deter "exploratory searches and seizures" — those conducted by investigative agencies without identifying specific criminal charges — and encourage more deliberate investigations.

Addressing concerns raised in some quarters that the procedure could hamper the speed and confidentiality of investigations, the office said the hearings would involve only investigative agencies and witnesses they request, and could be held in closed session. It concluded that the mere fact of investigative agencies or witnesses appearing in court was unlikely to significantly undermine investigative speed or confidentiality.

The office was more skeptical, however, about allowing suspects to file reappeal applications against decisions to suspend indictment. It said the change risked straining the efficient allocation of limited judicial resources and raised doubts about its practical effectiveness. Under the current system, suspects seek relief from such decisions through constitutional petitions; if courts were to take over that role, suspects would have to go through reappeal application proceedings, a Supreme Court reappeal, and a trial petition process — potentially making the path to relief longer than it is today.