PPP calls chief justice's rejection of Lee's re-recommendation demand 'crucial decision for judicial independence'

The People Power Party on Tuesday praised Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae's refusal to comply with President Lee Jae Myung's demand that he re-recommend a Supreme Court justice candidate, calling it "a crucial decision to protect the independence of the judiciary."

PPP members of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee held a press conference at the Assembly that afternoon to criticize Lee's demand. Rep. Park Hyung-soo, who leads the party's side on the committee, said Chief Justice Jo had rejected the president's request Tuesday morning, citing a lack of constitutional basis.

Park added that Cheong Wa Dae had pushed back, calling the refusal "a nullification of the president's appointment authority," while Democratic Party lawmakers and other members of the ruling camp on the committee had gone so far as to label Jo's decision a "judicial coup."

The PPP dismissed those characterizations as an absurd reversal of blame. "This is nothing but political agitation that turns the Constitution and the law on their head," Park said. "At a moment when the president himself should be held accountable for making a re-recommendation demand he had no authority to make, does it make any sense to cry 'judicial coup' simply because the chief justice refused to comply?"

Park added that nowhere in the Constitution is the president granted the right to demand that the chief justice re-recommend a Supreme Court justice candidate.

He also said the Democratic Party's claim that the president, as the appointing authority, could dictate the chief justice's power of recommendation "is sophistry with no constitutional basis whatsoever," and noted that the Democratic Party had said it would summon Jo to testify at the Supreme Court's national audit to press him on the matter.

Park said Jo's refusal should now lead directly to the appointment of nominee Son Bong-gi. "Now that Chief Justice Jo has declared he will reject the president's re-recommendation demand, the president must immediately submit to the National Assembly the motion for consent to appoint Son Bong-gi — the candidate Jo originally recommended — and seek the Assembly's approval through the constitutionally prescribed procedure," he said.

"Nowhere in the Constitution or the law does the president have the authority to order the chief justice to come back with a different candidate," Park said. "Complying with the president's re-recommendation demand would mean the chief justice voluntarily surrendering his constitutionally granted power of recommendation and leaving behind a shameful precedent that in effect endorses the president's shopping around for a Supreme Court justice."

On concerns raised in some quarters about a "paralysis of the judiciary," Park acknowledged that "a vacancy on the Supreme Court bench is not desirable from the standpoint of guaranteeing citizens' right to a speedy trial," but argued that since the total number of Supreme Court justices will eventually increase to 26, a single vacancy does not immediately paralyze the functioning of the judiciary.

Rep. Ju Jin-woo, speaking to reporters immediately after the press conference, said the episode amounted to President Lee "getting a taste of his own medicine from Chief Justice Jo after blatantly violating the Constitution in an attempt to make his own trial disappear."

"The president's constitutional violation constitutes grounds for impeachment," Ju added. "Stop stoking public anger over judicial independence any further. If the president fails to act on the previously recommended candidate Son Bong-gi, the constitutional violation will continue — and full responsibility lies with President Lee and Cheong Wa Dae."