Why Former Prime Minister Lee Nak-yon Is Publicly Opposing Constitutional Amendment at This Moment

[Choice Times=In-Gyu Park, Staff Reporter]

Former Prime Minister Lee Nak-yon, senior adviser to the New Future Democratic Party, has publicly expressed opposition to any potential discussion of constitutional amendment that may take place during President Lee Jae-myung’s current term.

In a post on his social media account on the 23rd, Lee said, “I have long argued for a decentralized presidential system as a matter of power structure, but given the reality of South Korea today, safeguarding the Constitution comes before amending it.”

Lee stated that “the independence of the judiciary, which the Constitution guarantees as a prerequisite for an immovable democracy, is being constantly threatened,” adding that “at this time, protecting the constitutional pillar of judicial independence must come before revising the Constitution itself.”

He went on to warn that “it is dangerous for forces that threaten judicial independence to lead constitutional reform,” noting that “the president is someone who has said that even judicial power lies beneath elected power.”

Lee also pointed to Article 128, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which stipulates that “a constitutional amendment extending a president’s term or altering the system of re-election shall not apply to the incumbent president.” He noted that Prime Minister Kim Min-seok had remarked that “five years is too short,” while the Minister of Government Legislation stated that whether to revise that clause is “a matter for the people to decide.” Lee then asked, “What would happen if they were to lead constitutional reform?”

Below is the full text of Lee Nak-yon’s social media post.

I have long advocated constitutional amendment. During the 18th National Assembly (2008–2012), I served as co-chair of the Constitutional Research Association, which included 182 lawmakers.

I have argued that a decentralized presidential system is the most desirable power structure. However, looking at the current reality of South Korea, I have come to a new conclusion: safeguarding the Constitution must come before amending it.

Discussions of constitutional amendment inevitably focus on power structure—that is, the form of government. Power structure is determined by the relationship, or distance, between the National Assembly and the government. A pure presidential system separates the legislature and the executive. A parliamentary cabinet system merges them. A decentralized presidential system is a hybrid.

No power structure touches the judiciary. The independence of judicial power from political authority is an unshakable premise.

Yet the independence of the judiciary, guaranteed by the Constitution as the foundation of an immovable democracy, is being continuously threatened. This reality makes one conclusion unavoidable: protecting the constitutional pillar of judicial independence must come before revising the Constitution.

In particular, it is dangerous for forces that threaten judicial independence to take the lead in constitutional amendment. The president is someone who has said that judicial power is subordinate to elected power.

Another inviolable area of constitutional amendment concerns presidential term limits. Article 128, Paragraph 2 clearly states: “A constitutional amendment for the extension of the presidential term or for changes to re-election shall not apply to the president in office at the time the amendment is proposed.”

This provision arose from a national determination never to repeat past experiences in which presidents amended the Constitution to extend their own terms.

Nevertheless, the prime minister has said that “five years is too short,” and the head of the Ministry of Government Legislation has said that whether to revise that clause is “a matter for the people to decide.” What would happen if they were to lead constitutional reform?

Even if constitutional amendment is pursued, I believe two conditions must be met. First, judicial independence must be preserved. Second, Article 128, Paragraph 2 must also be upheld.

In short, safeguarding the Constitution must come before amending it. We cannot grant a blank check on constitutional reform to those who treat the Constitution lightly.

#ConstitutionalReform #JudicialIndependence #SafeguardTheConstitution