The People Power of the Nation Party Calls for Judgment of Power Struggle
The ruling party claims violation of deliberation and voting rights
Rejected after single petition by Ju Ho-young 4 years ago
Park Chan-dae calls the National Assembly a site of violence
Today, half of the standing committee was convened early
Passed broadcasting 3+1 law without subcommittee
Operations committee threatens presidential office with a campaign
‘,
,
,
Ju Jin-woo, head of the legal advisory committee (left), and members of the People Power of the Nation Party hold a press conference on June 18 in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, to file a power struggle dispute for confirmation of the invalidity of the forced assignment and the selection of a standing committee chairman News1‘,’
,
, ‘The People Power of the Nation Party has pulled out the card of a power struggle dispute against the ruling party, which is resisting the monopolization of 11 standing committees by the Democratic Party and refusing the National Assembly schedule.’,
,
, ‘On the 18th, the People Power of the Nation Party filed a power struggle dispute with the Constitutional Court with the names of all 108 lawmakers, stating that the forced assignment and sole election of the standing committee chairman by speaker Woo Won-sik are invalid. The respondents are Speaker Woo and Baek Jae-hyun, the Secretary-General of the National Assembly.’,
,
, ‘A power struggle dispute is a system in which the Constitutional Court judges when a dispute arises about the existence or scope of authority between state agencies under the Constitution. If the People Power of the Nation Party’s application is cited, the forced assignment of standing committees and the appointment of standing committee chairmen become invalid.’,
,
, ‘Choo Kyung-ho, floor leader of the People Power of the Nation Party, said at a floor leader meeting that day, “Speaker Woo and the Democratic Party’s actions have violated the people’s representative rights, the participatory rights in the election of the National Assembly Speaker and Vice Speaker, and the deliberation and voting rights on National Assembly matters.” He went on to say, “We have filed to confirm the infringement of the authority of Speaker Woo and others and the nullification of their actions due to their unconstitutional dictatorial acts. We urge the Constitutional Court to make a wise decision.”‘,
,
, “The People Power of the Nation Party filed a power struggle dispute in the early days of the 21st National Assembly in 2020, also against the forced assignment of the standing committee by then Speaker Park Byeong-seok, a former Democratic Party member, but the decision was ‘dismissed.'”,
,
, “At that time, the dismissal decision was made due to reasons such as the loss of the petitioner’s status as a member of the National Assembly, disqualification of the party representative as a negotiation group leader, and the end of the infringement of authority. However, this time, the petition to the court is different from the situation where Ju Ho-young, then floor leader of the People Power of the Nation Party, filed a power struggle dispute alone four years ago.”,
,
, ‘The People Power of the Nation Party emphasized, “At a time when lawmakers who have just begun their terms are joining as petitioners, those in leadership in the legislature should uphold the principles of parliamentary democracy and majority rule based on the standards of the Constitution created by the sovereign people of South Korea.”‘,
,
, ‘Regarding this, there are some voices within the People Power of the Nation Party questioning, “Hasn’t the floor leadership admitted that they have no sharp insight into negotiations for the formation of the floor on their own?” Mayor Hong Jun-pyo also pointed out on Facebook, “The formation of the National Assembly is not subject to a power struggle dispute in the Constitutional Court,” and criticized, “Dragging every issue to the judiciary means that there is a lack of political strength.”‘,
,
, ‘In response to the ruling party’s power struggle dispute, Park Chan-dae, floor leader of the Democratic Party, criticized, “They continue to quarrel to delay the formation of the standing committee,” and demanded an end to the dispute. He then directly hit back, saying, “Everyone knows the real intention of the People Power of the Nation Party. They want to create \’Yoon Suk-yeol\’s Bulletproof\’ and \’Kim Geon-hee\’s Bulletproof.'”‘,
,
, ‘He continued, “They talk about a ‘boycott of the National Assembly,’ but the People Power of the Nation Party is illegally using the National Assembly and the people as a hostage to exercise violence. If Yoon Suk-yeol once lumped construction workers together as a ‘construction bomb,’ by the same logic, is the ruling party a parliamentary violence force, ‘Guk-Pok’?”‘,
,
, ‘The “half-standing committee” meeting, attended only by the ruling party and opposition parties, was also held today. The Operations Committee, Education Committee, and Culture, Sports, and Tourism Committee proceeded smoothly without the participation of People Power of the Nation Party lawmakers. The Operations Committee prepared for a full-scale onslaught by resolving the schedule of business reports, including the Presidential Office, National Security Office, and Presidential Security Service, to be held on the 21st. Representative Choo Mi-ae of the Democratic Party warned, “The President said that there is a burial reserve of 14 billion barrels, bypassing the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. I am confident that it is a lie,” and said, “It should be straightened out what grounds are used to allocate the country’s budget there.”‘,
,
, ‘A member of the same party, Boo Seung-chan, said, “I believe that the retreat of democracy begins before the move to the Presidential office,” and said, “We will ask during the Operations Committee.”‘,
,
, ‘The Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Commission passed the Democratic Party’s bill, known as the “Broadcasting 3+1 Law” (revision of the Broadcasting Act, Broadcasting Culture Promotion Act, Korea Educational Broadcasting System Act, and Broadcasting and Communications Commission Act), and handed it over to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee without forming a subcommittee for bill deliberation. In response, Lee Jun-seok, a member of the New Conservative Politics Party, advised, “Instead of focusing on how fast bills are being proposed, the chairman should consider how to proceed with the schedule of bills while considering how to minimize the impact of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s right to request a re-deliberation (right to refuse).”‘,
,
, ‘The Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Commission had initially planned to conduct a current situation inquiry by issuing a call to Minister Choi Jong-ho of the Ministry of Science and ICT and Chairman Kim Hong-il of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, but they did not respond to the attendance request. The commission decided to conduct one more current situation inquiry on the 25th and demanded the attendance of 12 witnesses, including Minister Choi and Vice Ministers Lee Chang-yoon and Kang Do-hyun from the Ministry of Science and ICT, Chairman Kim and Commissioner Lee Sang-in of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, Manager Jo Seong-eun of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review Commission, President Park Min of KBS, and President Kim Yoo-yeol of EBS. In addition, they also demanded the attendance of five witnesses, including Choi Soo-yeon, CEO of Naver, and Kwon Tae-sun, Vice Chairman of the Korea Communications Agency.”‘,
,
, ‘[Reporter Park Jae-kyung / Reporter Gu Jeong-keun / Reporter Seo Dong-cheol]’,
,
, ‘ r_start //’, ‘ r_end //’