0
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae arrives at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, Seoul, on May 14, the day the National Assembly is scheduled to hold a hearing on alleged judicial interference in the presidential election. Cho was listed as a witness but submitted a letter of non-attendance. / Source: Yonhap News

South Korea’s progressive parties, including the Democratic Party, are facing backlash for allegedly pressuring the Supreme Court over its decision to remand presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung’s public election law case with a guilty verdict orientation. Critics in the political arena are calling the move an attempt to seize control of the judiciary.

On May 14, the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee held a hearing to investigate alleged judicial interference in the presidential election, summoning Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and other Supreme Court officials. The hearing focused on accusations of judicial overreach and political bias.

Although progressive lawmakers called for Chief Justice Cho’s voluntary resignation, they stopped short of pursuing impeachment. However, following an agreement with the Rebuilding Korea Party, a group of first-term lawmakers introduced a special prosecutor bill targeting Cho the previous day.

The accusations center on claims that the Supreme Court sought to interfere in the election by remanding Lee’s case with a guilty orientation and that it allegedly collaborated during the declaration of martial law. Progressives have also proposed legislation to significantly expand the number of justices and allow constitutional complaints against Supreme Court rulings.

This has raised concerns of an unprecedented move to impeach a sitting Chief Justice. Impeachment requires a motion by one-third of the National Assembly and approval by a majority—something the progressive bloc could potentially achieve. However, even if the special prosecutor bill passes, Acting President Lee Ju-ho may exercise his veto power, leaving the outcome uncertain.

Progressive lawmakers have questioned whether the justices could have fully reviewed tens of thousands of pages of written records in such a short time. Critics counter that the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret legal principles rather than reassess facts already established in lower courts.

Concerns have also been raised about political bias in the Supreme Court. Under the current system, the president appoints the Chief Justice, who then recommends the remaining 13 justices, all of whom are appointed by the president. Some argue that justices appointed by former President Yoon Suk-yeol are likely to issue rulings unfavorable to Lee.

Members of the People Power Party (PPP) on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee issued a statement saying, “The Democratic Party is dismantling the constitutional principle of separation of powers and undermining the rule of law solely to protect one man—Lee Jae-myung. This is not only a threat to democracy but an outright act of authoritarianism.”

PPP lawmaker Park Choong-kwon added, “This is a blatant attempt to dominate the judiciary by a political force that already rewrote the Criminal Procedure Act and election laws to avoid trial. Now they’re intimidating the judiciary over its ruling. There is nothing wrong with holding the guilty accountable. Stop this judicial coup.”

Former PPP secretary general Lee Yang-soo echoed the criticism, saying, “Lee Jae-myung’s camp is bent on destroying judicial order. Not satisfied with pushing trials past the election, they’re now retaliating against the judiciary for rulings they don’t like. Is it abuse of prosecutorial power just because an opposition lawmaker is indicted?”

He continued, “They claim separating investigative and prosecutorial powers is reform, yet want to empower the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO), which they control. Only criminals fear the courts and prosecutors. The Democratic Party and Lee Jae-myung must immediately cease their assault on the rule of law.”