Toppling the Judicial System in Just Three Hours… A Prelude to Dictatorship Under the Lee Administration?

In just one hour at a bill subcommittee meeting, followed immediately by two hours at a full session of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, South Korea’s judicial system was effectively dismantled.

On the 11th, the Judicial Appeal Act and the Supreme Court Justice Expansion Act passed the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Both bills are directly related to ongoing criminal trials involving President Lee Jae-myung and are widely suspected of serving as a prelude to the consolidation of authoritarian rule under the current administration. The Democratic Party plans to rush both bills through the National Assembly plenary session within this month.

At the committee’s full meeting that day, the Democratic Party approved amendments to the Constitutional Court Act—commonly referred to as the Judicial Appeal Act—which would allow constitutional complaints against court judgments, as well as amendments to the Court Organization Act that would increase the number of Supreme Court justices.

Lawmakers from the People Power Party, outnumbered and unable to block the vote, staged a protest by attaching placards reading “Fourth Instance + Supreme Court Expansion = Overturning the Trials of a Criminal President” to their laptops, and then walked out just before the vote.

The Judicial Appeal Act expands the scope of constitutional complaints to include court judgments, which had previously been excluded. It allows parties to file a constitutional complaint within 30 days of a Supreme Court ruling becoming final and provides grounds for suspending the effect of that ruling until the Constitutional Court delivers its decision.

This would enable Supreme Court rulings—the final instance in ordinary judicial proceedings—to be challenged once more at the Constitutional Court on grounds of unconstitutionality or violation of fundamental rights, effectively creating a “fourth instance.” In doing so, it dismantles the basic framework of South Korea’s three-tier judicial system that has been maintained since the founding of the Republic. The Constitutional Court would, in effect, assume the status of the “highest court,” placing it at the apex of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court has long opposed the Judicial Appeal Act, arguing that a mere statutory amendment cannot alter the constitutional structure and status assigned by the Constitution itself.

The Democratic Party presents the move as “judicial reform.” It argues that, in practice, individuals have long sought constitutional remedies against court rulings or administrative actions, and that the Constitutional Court has already reviewed whether such actions violated constitutional principles or fundamental rights. The bill, they claim, merely codifies what has effectively been done in practice. However, the passage of this law would institutionalize a permanent fourth-instance system.

Critics suspect that the real motivation behind the Democratic Party’s push for the Judicial Appeal Act is its direct relevance to President Lee’s own legal cases. Just before the presidential election, the Supreme Court overturned and remanded the Lee Jae-myung election law violation case with a finding of guilt.

Although the judiciary subsequently suspended proceedings amid pressure from Lee’s supporters, once hearings resume at the appellate court under the current judicial framework, President Lee would almost certainly face a guilty verdict—dealing a severe blow to the legitimacy of his administration.

If the Judicial Appeal Act passes, however, President Lee would be able to take his election law conviction to the Constitutional Court for a new review. The current composition of the Constitutional Court is numerically favorable to the president.

The Supreme Court Justice Expansion Act, passed alongside it, would increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26. The bill’s proponents argue that the current number of justices is insufficient, leading to excessive workloads and delays in rulings.

Critics counter that such an expansion would allow the president to appoint new justices aligned with his views, enabling him to influence Supreme Court rulings. Above all, the measure has consistently been suspected of aiming to overturn the outcome of President Lee’s own trials. The expansion of the Supreme Court is seen as a case of legislation tailored to protect an individual, opening the door to the subjugation of the judiciary.

Historically, expanding the number of Supreme Court justices was a tactic employed by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez. World history shows that the consolidation of dictatorship has often culminated in the political domination of the judiciary.

#JudicialSystemCrisis #FourthInstanceCourt #RuleOfLawAtRisk