Seoul: The Democratic Party advanced an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act through the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, advocating for the suspension of all criminal trials concerning a president-elect until the conclusion of their term. The clause dictates that "when a defendant is elected president, the court shall suspend trial proceedings by decision from the date of election until the end of the presidential term."
According to Yonhap News Agency, this legislative move has faced intense criticism for seemingly attempting to circumvent judicial review and safeguard Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, who is embroiled in multiple criminal cases. Article 84 of the Constitution prevents the criminal prosecution of a president during their term, except in cases of insurrection or treason. However, it does not specify whether this immunity encompasses ongoing trials initiated before assuming office. Constitutional interpretation of such matters falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, not the legislature. By addressing this ambiguity through legislation, the Democratic Party risks overreaching its authority and potentially abusing legislative power.
Additionally, the party expedited a separate amendment through the Public Administration and Security Committee, altering critical language in the Public Official Election Act. This revision omits the term "act" from the clause that defines the crime of making false statements during an election campaign. The change seems designed to counteract the Supreme Court's recent ruling that implicated Lee in making false claims regarding the Baekhyeon-dong land development project. The ruling was returned to the Seoul High Court with an implied guilty verdict. If the amendment is approved, it could invalidate the legal grounds for prosecuting Lee, potentially allowing him to avoid accountability through retroactive legal changes.
These legislative changes are perceived as being tailored for an individual-laws crafted not for the public interest but to protect a specific politician. While such tactics are not unfamiliar in Korean politics, they are rarely pursued with such apparent timing and purpose. Historically, presidential vetoes have blocked similar self-serving measures. However, if Lee secures victory in the June 3 election, these amendments could be swiftly enacted. For a ruling party to modify laws mid-trial to benefit its candidate constitutes a significant challenge to democratic norms and an affront to the rule of law.
The motivations behind these actions may extend beyond merely securing electoral victory. If Lee's ongoing retrial results in a fine exceeding 1 million won, the Democratic Party would be mandated to return 43.4 billion won in public campaign subsidies, as dictated by existing election law. Viewed in this context, the party's push to amend the law could be interpreted as an attempt to escape financial liability, directly contradicting the Public Service Ethics Act, which prohibits public officials from exploiting their office for personal gain.
The Democratic Party's measures have not been confined to legal revisions. It has declared intentions to summon all 12 justices of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, for a legislative hearing to probe what it terms "judicial interference in the presidential election." Such a demand was unprecedented even during Korea's authoritarian periods. Summoning the entire Supreme Court bench before lawmakers can only be seen as political intimidation, suggesting an aim to bring the judiciary under political control, thereby completing a dominance over the executive, legislative, and now judicial branches.
The rule of law should not be manipulated as a political tool. The separation of powers is established to prevent any single branch of government from accumulating unchecked authority. When lawmakers tailor legal codes to shield their candidate from judicial rulings, democracy is not being served; it is being compromised.