'Judicial Reform Trio' Reads Passing Threshold... 'Crime of Distorting Law Needs Further Deliberation'
The passage of the 'Judicial Reform Trio' in South Korea, driven by the Democratic Party, faces concerns regarding the hastiness of its approval without sufficient social consensus, particularly around the controversial 'Crime of Distorting Law' clause.
The South Korean National Assembly is on the verge of passing the 'Judicial Reform Trio' bills, which include major changes to the legal framework such as the 'Crime of Distorting Law,' judicial appeals, and an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices. Proposed by the Democratic Party, the bills have sparked significant discussion within the legislature given their potential to drastically alter the judicial landscape in South Korea. As of now, the bills have passed through the Legislative Judiciary Committee and are set for a vote in the National Assembly between October 24 and November 3, aiming for swift enactment.
The 'Crime of Distorting Law' specifically aims to penalize judges and prosecutors who intentionally misapply legal statutes. However, there are ongoing concerns about its constitutionality, with civil society groups and legal experts arguing that the proposal should be revised for clarity and specificity before moving forward. Organizations like the Participation Solidarity have expressed that forcing through this legislation without addressing these critiques could undermine justice and invite further legal complications in the future.
Additionally, the proposed changes include a mechanism for judicial appeals to be subject to constitutional court review and an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26. The Korean Bar Association has also raised concerns about the exclusion of proposed reforms for the nomination process of Supreme Court justices, asserting the need for better representation of public opinions and diversity in the judiciary. The urgency expressed by these groups indicates a critical moment in South Koreaβs judicial reform endeavors, highlighting the balance between legislative efficiency and ensuring comprehensive debate on issues of legal fairness.