A revision bill that would bar an acting president from appointing Constitutional Court justices designated for the president passed the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Apr. 9, with backing from the main opposition Democratic Party.
The bill includes a supplementary clause that applies the measure retroactively—an apparent attempt to nullify recent appointments made by Acting President Han Duck-soo.
Just a day earlier, Han had nominated Lee Wan-kyu, head of the Ministry of Government Legislation, and Ham Sang-hoon, a senior judge at the Seoul High Court, to the Constitutional Court. The Democratic Party’s move seeks to invalidate those nominations through retroactive application—a move that legal experts warn contradicts the Constitution, which generally prohibits retroactive legislation except in extremely limited cases.
The revision also introduces a provision that would automatically extend the term of a Constitutional Court justice if no successor has been named. This would allow justices Moon Hyeong-bae and Lee Mi-son—both appointed by former President Moon Jae-in—to remain on the bench past the scheduled end of their terms on Apr. 18. However, the Constitution explicitly sets the term for Constitutional Court justices at six years. Attempting to alter that fixed term through lower-level legislation raises serious constitutional concerns, legal analysts say.
There has been growing debate over whether an unelected acting president should be allowed to appoint justices on behalf of the presidency.
But critics argue that any resolution must remain within the constitutional framework. The speaker of the National Assembly is said to be planning to file a jurisdiction dispute petition with the Constitutional Court in an effort to resolve the issue. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party appears to be pushing forward with legislation without waiting for the court’s ruling, despite concerns that the measures could be unconstitutional.
The bill also includes a clause that would automatically confirm appointments if the president fails to approve nominees submitted by the National Assembly or the chief justice within seven days. Constitutional scholars say this too may be unconstitutional, as it attempts to restrict presidential powers through ordinary legislation.
Critics warn that matters involving constitutional institutions such as the presidency, the National Assembly, the judiciary and the Constitutional Court cannot be unilaterally decided by a single political party, even if it holds a legislative majority.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is pursuing new legislation that would allow prosecutors and judges involved in the trial of party leader Lee Jae-myung to be punished for “distorting the law.” The party has also introduced a separate bill aimed at blocking Lee’s punishment for alleged election law violations. That bill includes a retroactive clause applying to those already indicted.
In addition, the party has proposed a bill to expand the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials and guarantee job security for its prosecutors. Critics argue the office already operates in alignment with the Democratic Party’s political interests, raising concerns about its independence.
Observers say these legislative efforts undermine the principle that laws must be general and universally applicable, and instead appear tailored to benefit specific individuals, factions or cases—amounting to what they describe as legislative abuse.
