Cheong Wa Dae accuses chief justice of distorting facts, urges new nominee submission

Cheong Wa Dae on Tuesday sharply criticized Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae, who has refused to re-nominate a Supreme Court justice candidate, saying he was "distorting the facts." The presidential office rebutted point by point the Supreme Court's claims that the president's re-nomination request was procedurally flawed, and urged Jo to promptly submit a new candidate.

In an additional press notice issued that day, Cheong Wa Dae said the chief justice, in conveying his position to the media on the re-nomination request, had opened by citing the constitutional provision that presidential acts in matters of state must be carried out through documents countersigned by the prime minister and relevant Cabinet ministers. The presidential office said this amounted to "a distortion of the facts — as if the president's re-nomination request were flawed for failing to comply with the constitutional document requirement and countersignature regime."

Cheong Wa Dae made clear that the communication had been an official electronic document that went through the proper countersignature process. "The official document dated Aug. 28 requesting the re-nomination of a Supreme Court justice candidate was issued as an electronic document, and the prime minister countersigned that electronic document," it said, adding that past appointments of the chief justice and Supreme Court justices had been carried out with only the prime minister's countersignature. It then said that if the chief justice's position was that the absence of a relevant Cabinet minister's countersignature rendered the rejection and re-nomination request invalid, that would amount to denying the validity of all chief justice and Supreme Court justice appointments made to date with only the prime minister's countersignature.

Cheong Wa Dae also rebuffed claims that the official document contained no explicit language of "rejection," saying the president's intent to refuse had been clearly stated on constitutional grounds. The presidential office said the president had chosen not to use the words "return" or "rejection" out of respect for the chief justice as a constitutional institution, but had made the refusal unambiguous by stating in the Aug. 28 document that it had decided not to submit candidate Son Bong-ki's appointment for National Assembly consent, citing Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution and Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Court Organization Act.

Cheong Wa Dae said that "once the president has rejected a nominated candidate, the only way for the chief justice to fulfill his constitutional obligation to constitute a judicial body — the Supreme Court — is to re-nominate a new candidate," adding that the president had therefore "politely requested, in accordance with constitutionally prescribed procedures, that the chief justice please re-nominate a judicial candidate."

It also said the constitutional basis for returning the nomination had been clearly stated in the official document, and that specific reasons had been explained in detail to the public through a senior spokesperson briefing. "It is hard to fathom the intent behind the chief justice alone saying he does not know the grounds for the return because they were not in the document, when the public is fully aware of those reasons," it said.

Cheong Wa Dae said the public does not expect the chief justice to "see only what he wants to see and hear only what he wants to hear under the banner of judicial independence," and cited Article 27, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right to a speedy trial. It called on the chief justice to "faithfully fulfill his constitutional obligation to constitute the relevant institution, so that the constitutional rights of the people are no longer infringed upon."