Judicial reform retreat must not be a tactical move

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

The Democratic Party’s campaign committee announced Monday that it would withdraw two controversial legislative proposals: one to allow nonjudges to be appointed to the Supreme Court and another to expand the number of Supreme Court justices to 100. The lawmakers who introduced the bills, Park Beom-kye and Jang Kyung-tae, were instructed to drop them. The announcement followed Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung’s statement that the proposals did not reflect his views or those of the party and that he had directed party members to exercise restraint.

While the withdrawal of legislation appearing to threaten judicial independence is a welcome development, public skepticism remains. Some suspect the reversal is not a principled retreat, but a strategic move to win back moderate voters as the race tightens. Kweon Seong-dong, floor leader of the People Power Party, accused Lee of political opportunism, saying, “This is not the first time he has changed his position. I am sure he will try again if he wins.”

The Democratic Party’s judicial reform push gained momentum after the Supreme Court remanded Lee’s election law violation case with a guilty verdict implied. In response, the party intensified its criticism with Lee himself echoing that “the judiciary must be clean.” The campaign to pressure the judiciary continued until just 10 days ago, when polls began showing a narrowing gap between Lee and conservative candidate Kim Moon-soo. The Democratic Party appears to have recalibrated its stance after sensing that excessive pressure on the courts was alienating centrist voters.

The party also backed away from a special counsel bill targeting Chief Justice Jo Hee-de. The climbdown suggests that judicial independence and reform were being framed around one candidate’s political prospects. Such a posture undermines the foundations of a democratic republic. A public that expects the rule of law to function as a given cannot help but feel distrust and anxiety.

These concerns were reflected at Monday’s National Judges Conference. Of the 126 representatives, 88 participated, either online or in-person. The meeting lasted just more than two hours and was adjourned without adopting a formal agenda, with discussions postponed until after the election. The key issues — judicial independence and the political neutrality of Supreme Court rulings — proved difficult for sitting judges to address publicly. In a statement, the conference noted that concerns had been raised about the potential electoral impact of any position taken by the judiciary during the campaign.

Judicial independence and public trust are pillars of a functioning democracy. Now is the time for presidential candidates to demonstrate the conviction and judgment necessary to protect the judiciary from politicization.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.