The Conflict Between the Democratic Party and Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae Started Before the Presidential Election
Debate is currently ongoing regarding the tenure of the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Following calls from the ruling Democratic Party for Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae to resign, the Presidential Office expressed “principled agreement” with these calls. In response, the opposition has argued that such calls are an overreach unprecedented in constitutional history.
On the 15th, Democratic Party Leader Jeong Cheong-rae announced at a party executive meeting in the National Assembly that “Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae should apologize and resign.” Jeong had previously criticized Chief Justice Cho’s comments about ensuring the independence of trials and reviewing the constitutionality of the Special Division for Rebellion Cases on his social media.
Earlier, Democratic Party member Chu Mi-ae, Chair of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, stated on Facebook that “Chief Justice Cho claims judicial independence to protect a constitutional order but is actually delaying trials to protect insurgents,” and insisted that he should step down for judicial independence.
The conflict between the Democratic Party and Chief Justice Cho traces back to before the June 3rd presidential election. Jeong’s direct critique appears to stem from the Supreme Court’s decision last May to overturn the conviction of Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung for breaking the election law and remanding the case, just before the June 3rd election.
Chief Justice Cho, upon taking office, has emphasized the so-called ‘6·3·3 principle’ for election law cases, aiming to complete the first trial in 6 months, the second in 3 months, and the third in 3 months. President Lee’s election law case took 36 days to reach a conclusion in the Supreme Court, with a verdict delivered just 9 days after the case was referred to the Grand Bench.
This rapid proceeding led to criticism centered around the Democratic Party. Additionally, supporters of the party questioned, “Did they really review all 60,000 pages of records in just two days?” However, the Supreme Court explained that its rules call for expeditious handling of election law violation cases to resolve confusion and distrust due to differing judgments in the first and second trials.
In May, the Democratic Party applied pressure by suggesting a ‘special investigation card’ as Chief Justice Cho and Supreme Court justices decided not to attend a parliamentary inquiry regarding the ruling on Lee Jae-myung’s case. While Supreme Court nominees have attended parliamentary confirmation hearings, a sitting Chief Justice has never done so, due to the principle of judicial independence as part of the separation of powers.
The debate intensified in September alongside controversies over judicial reform. On the “Day of the Courts,” Chief Justice Cho again emphasized judicial independence, while a nationwide judges’ meeting agreed that the judiciary must be involved in discussions regarding the increase of Supreme Court justices. Following this, Chair Chu publicly called for Cho’s resignation.
The Democratic Party has hinted at the possibility of pursuing impeachment against Chief Justice Cho. Leader Jeong stated, “We have judged former presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo for rebellion and corruption, and even sent Lee Myung-bak to prison. The people have impeached Park Geun-hye and Yoon Seok-yeol. Is the Chief Justice greater? Is he above the President?”
Presidential Office Spokesperson Kang Yoo-jeong stated in a briefing that there is “no special position” on the call for Chief Justice Cho’s resignation from the ruling party, but acknowledged that “if there is a societal or national demand, there must be reflection on its feasibility and reasoning as an granted authority.”
The spokesperson later clarified that the Presidential Office’s acknowledgment was based on principle, not an endorsement of the resignation demand. The opposition People Power Party protested, stating that the independence of the judiciary is being compromised. Leader Jang Dong-hyuk noted ongoing concerns as five trials involving President Lee Jae-myung are currently stalled, and stressed that there is no chance for a change in verdict as a guilty ruling has already been made in the Supreme Court regarding the election violation case. Assemblywoman Na Kyung-won criticized on Facebook, suggesting the situation reflects “dictatorial governance, with investigations and trials tailored to political appetites.”
As the Democratic Party and its supporters escalate pressure for Chief Justice Cho’s resignation, attention is focused on how he will respond.