South Korea's judicial system faces sweeping changes after the Cabinet passed three controversial judicial reform bills, raising concerns about potential chaos in the country's legal framework.
President Lee Jae-myung convened an extraordinary Cabinet meeting on the 5th to deliberate and approve the promulgation of the three judicial reform laws: the constitutional complaint against court rulings (Constitutional Court Act), the crime of judicial distortion (Criminal Act), and the expansion of Supreme Court justices (Court Organization Act).
Despite calls from opposition parties to exercise his veto power, President Lee chose not to do so. His decision to proceed with the Cabinet vote immediately after returning from state visits to Singapore and the Philippines signals his intent to expedite implementation and preempt further debate over a potential veto.
The People Power Party had opposed the legislation, arguing it "undermines the foundation of the judicial system." However, the presidential office reportedly concluded that exercising the veto would only prolong political conflict by sending the bills back to the National Assembly.
"The government comprehensively reviewed the content of the bills and the deliberation process in the National Assembly," presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jeong said at a briefing. "Since these bills were passed through proper procedures in the National Assembly, the presidential office believes it is appropriate to approve and promulgate them in accordance with constitutional procedures."
Legal experts warn the reforms could shake the foundations of Korea's judicial system.
The constitutional complaint law effectively introduces a fourth level of appeal by allowing court rulings to be challenged before the Constitutional Court. Critics fear this could lead to demands for a "fifth trial" or laws to overturn constitutional complaint decisions.
It remains unclear which court would retry cases if the Constitutional Court rules against Supreme Court decisions, and the possibility of additional constitutional complaints against remanded cases cannot be excluded.
"If someone loses a constitutional complaint case, they could demand another remedy or a system to overturn the constitutional complaint ruling," a presiding judge warned. "Trials could repeat endlessly without final verdicts, and citizens will bear the burden."
Questions also arise about whether the Constitutional Court can handle the anticipated caseload. The Supreme Court estimates the Constitutional Court, which currently receives approximately 2,500 cases annually, could face around 15,000 cases once the constitutional complaint system takes effect.
The Constitutional Court has established a dedicated preliminary review division staffed by eight constitutional researchers to assess whether cases meet legal requirements, but critics say this is woefully inadequate.
The judicial distortion crime, which punishes judges and prosecutors who intentionally misapply laws in criminal investigations or trials, has drawn criticism for potentially chilling legal interpretation and undermining judicial independence.
"In the area of economic crimes, investigative agencies and courts have developed legal principles to address new types of offenses," said a lawyer and former prosecutor. "The introduction of the judicial distortion crime could inhibit such legal development."
The expansion of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26 over three years, adding four justices annually starting in 2028, is also contentious. Critics argue simply increasing the number of justices will not necessarily reduce case processing times and would require additional support staff.
The current en banc system, where all 14 justices deliberate together, would also need restructuring. Proposals to create two separate panels of 13 justices each raise concerns about inconsistent rulings on similar cases, while maintaining a 26-member en banc is considered impractical.
"Regardless of whether the expansion is right or wrong, we need systematic preparation including increasing the overall number of judges," a court official said.
