Seoul: The Democratic Party (DP) is forging ahead with its controversial plan to establish a special tribunal for insurrection cases, despite significant objections from both progressive legal circles and within its ranks. The decision was confirmed during a meeting of DP lawmakers on Tuesday. The proposal has undergone revisions due to concerns that it might contravene the Constitution, yet fundamental questions about the necessity of the tribunal persist.
According to Yonhap News Agency, the bill, officially named the "Special Act on the Establishment of a Dedicated Tribunal for the Dec. 3 Emergency Decree Under Yoon Suk Yeol and on Whistleblower Protection," was approved by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on December 3. From its inception, the bill has been criticized for its legal shortcomings. Notably, Lawyers for a Democratic Society have warned that allowing figures such as the justice minister to recommend tribunal candidates could compromise the separation of powers, providing former President Yoon Suk Yeol with grounds to legally contest the measure. The People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy has also called for amendments.
Judicial concerns add another layer of complexity. A national judges' conference, influenced by progressive judges from research groups, has raised alarms that the tribunal and proposed crime of judicial distortion could be unconstitutional, jeopardizing judicial independence. Even some DP lawmakers have expressed apprehension. With such widespread criticism, the responsible action for the governing party would be to halt the initiative or reassess it thoroughly from the outset.
Instead of a comprehensive review, the DP has opted for minor amendments. They have removed Yoon's name from the bill's title, included provisions for appointments by the Supreme Court's chief justice after deliberation, and restricted the tribunal's jurisdiction to appellate trials, excluding first-instance cases. These alterations fail to address the core issue, as the proposal still focuses on appointing judges for a special tribunal through top judicial authority, prompting political conflict rather than demonstrating prudence.
Given the unresolved constitutional concerns, the logical step would be to abandon the attempt to establish a special tribunal that could destabilize the democratic judicial framework.
The timing further complicates the DP's position. A special prosecutor's team led by Cho Eun-seok has recently reported no evidence to support claims that Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de or judge Ji Gui-yeon participated in the martial law declaration. While the command sought to appoint a liaison officer to the Supreme Court, the court rejected the request. Nevertheless, the DP remains skeptical of the judiciary.
Calls for caution have been disregarded. Lee Seok-yeon, chair of the national unity committee, has urged adherence to constitutional limits and warned against unnecessary haste. Moon Hyung-bae, the former acting Constitutional Court chief, advised that individual errors should be addressed without dismantling institutions. Ignoring these warnings and proceeding with a special tribunal that offers limited benefits but exacerbates constitutional and judicial independence issues benefits no one. Halting the plan appears to be the most sensible option.