The Constitutional Court has accepted a request to suspend the appointments of two Constitutional Court nominees selected by acting President Han Duck-soo. While there is no law explicitly prohibiting an acting president from nominating justices, the Court said that it is difficult to affirm that the acting president has the authority to make such appointments. As a result, the nominations of Lee Wan-kyu, the conservative Minister of Legislation, and Ham Sang-hoon, a judge at the Seoul High Court, have been halted—making it more likely that the new president will handle the appointments.
The reasons behind acting President Han’s push for these nominations, and whether he personally selected the candidates, remain unclear. However, this situation underscores how Constitutional Court justices appear more concerned with political alignment than with upholding the Constitution.
For the Court to fulfill its role, justices must remain politically impartial and possess the experience and ability required for the job. However, few believe the current justices meet these standards. Under the previous Moon Jae-in administration, five of the nine justices came from progressive backgrounds, including members of the Korea Lawyers for Public Interest and Human Rights and the Lawyers for a Democratic Society—an unprecedented shift. Since then, political parties have openly tried to place loyalists on the Court. The Democratic Party pushed for the appointment of Judge Ma Eun-hyuk, who aligned with their views, while acting President Han failed to appoint two conservative justices.
A deeper concern emerged during the vote on whether to impeach Lee Jin-sook, head of the Korea Communications Commission. Although the motion was widely viewed as politically motivated—filed just two days after she took office—four progressive justices still supported it, resulting in a 4-4 deadlock.
The Constitution divides the appointment of justices equally among the president, the chief justice, and the National Assembly to ensure balance. In practice, however, this has only deepened political and ideological divides, with no sign of improvement.
Germany’s model may offer a path forward: all justices are elected by the legislature, but confirmation requires a two-thirds majority. This high threshold makes it difficult for partisan nominees to be approved and forces parties to seek candidates with broader support. Given the Constitutional Court’s current state, reform is urgent. Lawmakers must begin serious discussions on change.
