Ruling and opposition parties clash in Constitutional Court audit: “Dissolution of insurgent party” vs “Unfair trial petition”.

Ruling Party: “Martial Law is Rebellion… If it Blocked Parliamentary Access, It’s Complicity in Rebellion”
Opposition: “Increasing the Number of Supreme Court Justices is an Infringement on Judicial Independence… Request a Constitutional Dispute”,

[Seoul=Newsis] Reporter Choi Jin-seok = On the 17th, a national audit is held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul for the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Research Institute by the National Assembly’s Legislative and Judiciary Committee. 2025.10.17. myjs@newsis.com,
,
, ‘[Seoul=Newsis] Reporters Han Eun-jin and Han Jae-hyeok = On the 17th, during the on-site national audit of the Constitutional Court by the National Assembly’s Legislative and Judiciary Committee, the ruling party and the opposition engaged in a battle over the Democratic Party’s judicial reform and the request for a dissolution judgment against the People Power Party for being a rebellion party.’,
,
, ‘Lee Seong-yoon of the Democratic Party questioned Son In-hyeok, General Secretary of the Constitutional Court, during the on-site audit, mentioning “Yoon Suk-yeol and commanders involved in the December 3 martial law, Han Deok-soo, ministers, and defendants related to martial law are being tried” and added, “Yoon Suk-yeol is the first member of the People Power Party.”‘,
,
, ‘Lee highlighted issues such as Yoon’s arrest warrant obstruction and alleged ties with the Unification Church, arguing, “The Unified Progressive Party was dissolved just for conspiracy to rebel. Isn’t this enough ground for dissolution (of the People Power Party)?” while asking, “Doesn’t the People Power Party appear to be a rebellion party?”‘,
,
, ‘To this, Son replied, “It’s not appropriate to make a definitive statement on this matter here.” When further asked about how he would handle a request for a judgment on the unconstitutionality of the People’s Power Party, he stated, “Even in the Unified Progressive Party case, it was emphasized that the dissolution of a party should be used as a very cautious and ultimate measure. The judicial panel will make an appropriate decision if a case arises.”‘,
,
, ‘In the same party, Representative Jang Kyung-tae argued, “What do you think our reason for considering martial law as rebellion is?” adding, “When martial law is declared, the only institution that can restore constitutional order and protect democracy is likely the National Assembly.”‘,
,
, ‘Representative Jang criticized People Power Party members who did not attend the martial law rescind vote during the December 3 martial law, saying, “If martial law was indeed a national emergency, what should the National Assembly have done? They could have organized an emergency budget and legislation. As constitutional officeholders, they should perform their inherent duties rather than stay in the party office or obstruct access to the National Assembly, which could also be seen as complicity in rebellion.”‘,
,
, “The People Power Party criticized the Democratic Party’s judicial reform measures, such as the ‘judgment appeal’ that allows the reconsideration of Supreme Court rulings through the Constitutional Court and the increase in the number of Supreme Court justices.”,
,
, ‘Na Kyung-won of the People Power Party critiqued, “They plan to increase the number of Supreme Court justices, which, if appointed all at once by one administration, impinges on judicial independence.” She urged the Constitutional Court to actively exercise its authority in constitutional disputes, saying, “The discussion stems from an intent to shake and dominate the judiciary.”‘,
,
, ‘Representative Cho Bae-suk remarked, “The Democratic Party is talking about a ‘four-level court system,’ but even Myung-bae Moon, the former acting president of the Constitutional Court, described the proposal to increase justices while advocating for a four-level system as contradictory.”‘,
,
, ‘Representative Cho criticized, “Can the Constitutional Court handle 30% of annual Supreme Court cases through judgment appeals? If so, the confirmation of the court’s rulings would be delayed, denying rights protection.”‘,
,
, ‘Representative Kwak Kyu-taek stated, “Until last year, about 50,000 cases were filed with the Constitutional Court. Annually, the Supreme Court handles 40,000 to 50,000 cases,” expressing concern that “Citizens might submit judgment appeals to the Constitutional Court claiming their fundamental rights have been violated.”‘,
,
, ‘Kwak emphasized, “To process these cases, the number of judicial researchers would need to be significantly increased,” and criticized support for the proposal from a purely theoretical standpoint, underlining, “It’s not an issue to agree on just because it’s about ‘being faithful to guaranteeing citizens’ fundamental rights.’”‘,
,
,