Chief Justice Rejects Renewed Request for Supreme Court Nominee
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said he cannot restart the nomination process for a vacant Supreme Court seat without specific reasons and a constitutional basis from the presidential office.
South Korea’s chief justice said Tuesday that he cannot comply with the presidential office’s request to recommend a new candidate for a vacant Supreme Court seat because the request did not provide sufficient reasons or a constitutional basis.
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae restated his position during the National Assembly’s annual audit of the Supreme Court. He said the document sent by Cheong Wa Dae did not clearly explain why the recommendation process should be restarted or identify the constitutional grounds for doing so. Without that information, Cho said, it was difficult to begin follow-up procedures.
The dispute concerns a prolonged vacancy on the country’s highest court. In August, the presidential office asked Cho to submit a new candidate to President Lee Jae Myung after raising concerns about what it described as a lack of procedural completeness in his earlier recommendation. Cho rejected that request and asked the presidential office to specify both its reasons and its legal foundation.
Under South Korea’s Constitution, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president after being recommended by the chief justice and approved by the National Assembly. The disagreement therefore centers on the boundaries of each institution’s role in the appointment process and whether an already completed recommendation can be reopened at the president’s request.
Cho told lawmakers that he was sorry the seat had remained vacant for an extended period and said he would work to resolve the situation. He did not, however, indicate that he had changed his position on making a fresh recommendation under the current circumstances.
The chief justice also declined to take an oath as a witness during the audit, citing the constitutional separation of powers among the legislature, executive and judiciary. The ruling Democratic Party had demanded that he appear as a witness at this year’s session.
Supreme Court chief justices have traditionally delivered opening remarks at parliamentary audits and then left with the approval of the chair of the National Assembly’s judiciary committee. Cho’s decision to remain outside the formal witness process added another institutional dispute to a hearing already focused on the unresolved judicial appointment.
The vacancy will continue until the chief justice, presidential office and National Assembly can complete the constitutionally prescribed appointment procedure. Cho’s remarks made clear that any immediate breakthrough will require the presidential office to provide a more detailed justification or for the institutions to find another way to settle their disagreement.