In the process of choosing a successor to justice Byun Jae Seung, who retires on February 26, the Supreme Court, supposedly to prevent negative side effects from the process, decided to require that nominations be made without disclosing them to the public. Last July, the Supreme Court Justice Nomination Advisory Committee disclosed for the first time ever the names of four candidates, and that was the result of the court's acceptance of demands for reform by younger judges that surfaced in the process of nominating justice Kim Yong Dam in August 2003. Six months later, however, it has reversed its decision. One worries that this will lead to a consuming controversy that in no way relates to the key issue of selecting the right individuals for the court.
The move appears to have been taken in response to the aftermath of the outcry in some quarters that came when candidates were disclosed last year. It also looks like an attempt to ensure a stable transition as the court gets ready for a change of eleven justices by July of next year. Nevertheless, the work of drafting the framework of judicial authority should not be approached with a totally self-accommodating attitude.
Some argue that unless the process is kept closed to the public, the independence of the judicial branch might be hurt because the process might become influenced by civic groups. It all too natural a right for civic society to be able to examine potential justices, as they are not chosen directly by the people yet are bestowed with massive power and authority. If the process is done in secret, the independence of the judiciary could be hurt when individuals the government is pleased with are quietly named as candidates. If there are attempts to wrongfully influence the examination process or if some of the related information is disclosed intentionally, then that, too, would be something that could be rightly have its legitimacy questioned.
The fact of the matter is that the conservative elites in justice system have so firmed up their privileged status that reform in the judicial branch is more unsatisfactory than ever before. It is part of the reason the highest court in the land is out of step with changed times and fails to adequately reflect the diverse views of the citizens. Even if they are not going to actively recommend that civic society participate in the judicial system with among other things the right to suggest people and have that be for the sake of democratization of the system, they should at least not exclude the possibility. How can you be all hush hush and secretive about selecting Supreme Court justices?
The Hankyoreh, 5 January 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
[Editorial] Supreme Court Justice Selection Must Be Public |
