South Korea's Constitutional Court directly refuted the Supreme Court's position that constitutional complaints against court rulings are unconstitutional.
The confrontation escalated after Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on December 12 that "introducing judicial review appeals would cause tremendous harm to the public." The Constitutional Court responded on December 13 with an official statement declaring that "judicial independence is not unlimited," putting the two judicial bodies in open conflict.
The Constitutional Court released a 26-page FAQ document on "Introduction of Constitutional Complaints Against Court Rulings" to the media. The document addresses 15 questions responding to concerns from legal circles and the Supreme Court's arguments, including whether the system would create a four-tier trial process, whether it complies with the Constitution, and whether it would delay proceedings.
The previous day, Chief Justice Cho criticized the proposal when reporters asked about his position on constitutional complaints against rulings and the Supreme Court justice expansion bill during his commute to the Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul. "It would cause tremendous harm to the public," he said.
Constitutional complaints against court rulings would allow the Constitutional Court to review whether final Supreme Court decisions violate the Constitution, including infringements on fundamental rights.
The Constitutional Court directly countered claims that such appeals would violate the separation of powers or undermine judicial independence. "Judicial independence is not unlimited," the court stated, adding that "under Article 103 of the Constitution, when trials violate the Constitution, our constitutional framework intends for correction through the internal appeals system and externally through the Constitutional Court, which holds constitutional adjudication authority."
The Constitutional Court also rebutted interpretations of Article 107, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. "This does not mean the Supreme Court has final review authority over the constitutionality of orders, rules, and dispositions in relation to the Constitutional Court," the statement said. "It means the Supreme Court has final review authority only when the question of whether orders, rules, or dispositions violate the Constitution or laws becomes a 'premise of the trial.'"
Regarding criticism from the Supreme Court and legal community that the system would effectively create a four-tier trial process, the Constitutional Court responded directly. "The proposed amendment to the Constitutional Court Act limits the scope of constitutional complaints to 'finalized rulings,'" it stated. The court explained this would not re-examine factual determinations or legal interpretations made during trials, but rather "review constitutional interpretations made by courts during trials and interpretations regarding the meaning and effect of fundamental rights, as the highest and final constitutional interpretation authority."
The court also addressed concerns about prolonged litigation, citing Taiwan's experience after introducing the system in 2022. According to the Constitutional Court, Taiwan received 4,371 constitutional complaint filings in 2022, the first year of implementation, but this dropped significantly to 1,137 last year. "As understanding of the purpose and function of constitutional complaints against rulings increases and the system stabilizes, the number of filings is expected to decrease," the court said.
On concerns about insufficient Constitutional Court personnel relative to potential caseloads, the court stated: "It is inappropriate to abandon fundamental rights protection by concluding that current Constitutional Court staff and facilities cannot handle incoming cases. If the system is introduced, budget expansion for constitutional researchers and other resources may be necessary."
