In South Korea, the Democratic Party is pushing for judicial reform legislation that the government claims is intended to protect citizens' rights and curb judicial overreach. However, voices within the legal community and civil society are expressing significant concern that these reforms might threaten the independence of the judiciary and raise constitutional issues. Recently, a bill to amend the Constitutional Court Act passed through a subcommittee of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee. This proposed amendment allows parties to appeal to the Constitutional Court when their basic rights are deemed to be infringed by a court ruling, which essentially introduces a fourth level of court review, as the Constitutional Court may overturn decisions made by the Supreme Court.

This change would alter the legal landscape by shifting the role of the final arbiter from the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Court, leading to a heated debate over the authority of these two institutions. The Administrative Office of the Courts argues that establishing a higher authority over the Supreme Court contravenes Article 101 of the Constitution, which outlines the structure of the court system and designates the Supreme Court as the highest court. They also express concerns that such amendments could lead to delays in final rulings and increased legal costs for the citizens, labeling the proposal as unacceptable. Conversely, the Constitutional Court asserts that determining violations of fundamental rights falls within its constitutional purview and does not infringe upon the authority of the Supreme Court, thereby countering accusations of unconstitutionality.

Additionally, the proposed amendment to the Court Organization Act suggests increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26 over a period of three years, at a rate of four additional justices per year. The Democratic Party emphasizes that this increase aims to resolve issues of trial delays. However, the Supreme Court warns that concentrating resources on an expanded court could lead to the deterioration of lower courts and exacerbate delays. It is also crucial to consider that with a significantly larger panel of justices, the court may face challenges in making coherent legal precedents, which rely on the collaborative discussion among justices in full sessions. The ongoing discourse reflects a profound struggle between the legislative and judicial branches of government in South Korea, with implications for the rule of law and the protection of citizens' rights.