Blue House backs bill ending prosecutors’ supplementary investigation powers despite veto calls

The Blue House has vowed to approve a divisive bill passed by the National Assembly that would abolish prosecutors’ supplementary investigation powers. 

A revision to the Criminal Procedure Act cleared the ruling liberal Democratic Party (DP)-controlled National Assembly on Friday with 175 votes in support, despite a boycott by the conservative main opposition People Power Party (PPP).

This has prompted the PPP to demand that President Lee Jae Myung veto the bill. 

"Use your veto immediately to overturn legislation that goes against the will of the people," PPP senior spokesperson Choi Bo-yoon said in a statement on Sunday. "If you continue to neglect public order and the justice system, it will ultimately come back to haunt your administration."

The Blue House said it "respects the legislative process and final decision of the National Assembly."

"The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act will prevent any monopoly and abuse of power by separating investigations and prosecutions, while making the criminal justice system more accessible to the people through stronger protections for the rights of victims and citizens," Seong Ghi-hong, presidential secretary for public relations and communication, said in a statement on Friday. "The Blue House will do its utmost to ensure that the revised law is implemented without setbacks and that the people can experience the changes in their daily lives."

The amendment marks the first time in the 78 years since the Prosecutors' Office Act was enacted in 1948 that prosecutors have been completely stripped of their investigative authority. The DP has long pushed to reform the prosecution's investigative authority since the liberal Moon Jae-in administration. 

Under the DP-led bill passed Friday, prosecutors would no longer be allowed to conduct supplementary investigations but would only be able to request that police carry out additional investigative work. Police would then have to complete the supplementary investigations within two months of receiving a prosecutor’s request.

The amendment also includes provisions that add reasons for dismissing indictments, including cases where prosecutors bring charges based on illegal investigations and cases where they abuse their power in deciding whether to prosecute.

The PPP contends that the provisions would allow prosecutors to drop charges against President Lee, who is facing five criminal trials that were suspended shortly after he took office in June of last year.

Once Lee approves the bill in a Cabinet meeting, it will take effect. The president must either promulgate a bill passed by the National Assembly or return it to the legislature for reconsideration within 15 days after it is transferred to the government. 

Lee is set to return from a three-country South America tour on Monday and reportedly plans to preside over a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. 

PPP floor leader Jeong Jeom-sig on Friday called the amendment a “Lee Jae Myung jailbreak bill." 

"The expanded grounds for dismissing indictments are clearly tailor-made for President Lee, whose criminal trial has been suspended," Jeong said. "Some DP lawmakers launched a group calling for the withdrawal of indictments in February, and they also attempted to pursue a special counsel aimed at canceling indictments. This is already the third attempt this year to blatantly erase President Lee's criminal trials." 

The DP previously passed a revision to the Government Organization Act on Sept. 26 last year, which would allow the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to be abolished.

Under the revised laws, the Public Prosecution Service and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency are scheduled to launch on Oct. 2. Prosecutors at the new Public Prosecution Service will be responsible only for filing charges and maintaining prosecutions in court, with no investigative authority. Criminal investigations will instead be handled by the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the police.

The prosecution service has also raised concerns about the amendment passed on Friday. Acting Prosecutor General Koo Ja-hyeon offered to resign shortly after the bill cleared the parliament and asked the government to carefully review the law. 

“Even after the National Assembly sends the bill to the government, I urge the government to look into this one more time: Will any gaps open up when the law takes effect? Will it really be enough to protect the public?” Koo said on Friday. “We have repeatedly warned that under this new Criminal Procedure Act, prosecutors will have to decide whether to indict using nothing but written case files.” 

The DP, however, has claimed that the amendment is to “protect people’s rights.” 

"This completes the prosecution reform demanded by the public and serves as a structural safeguard that prevents any administration from privatizing prosecutorial power,” DP floor spokesperson Lee Ju-hee said in a statement on Sunday. “We also take the concerns surrounding these institutional changes seriously. Therefore, we have included protections in the amended law to protect people’s rights. Although these measures are thorough, we will carefully monitor how they function on the ground and make necessary improvements.” 

The PPP plans to challenge the DP-led reform after failing to stop it through a filibuster. 

“We are examining all available legal procedures, such as a competence dispute, a constitutional complaint and a constitutional review of the law,” PPP Spokesperson Park Sung-hoon told reporters on Saturday. “We will continue to raise issues regarding the flaws of this bill.” 

A competence dispute addresses procedural violations between state bodies and could nullify the bill if upheld by the Constitutional Court. A constitutional complaint allows citizens to challenge and strike down provisions that violate fundamental rights, and a constitutional review occurs when a court asks the Constitutional Court to evaluate the statute, which can permanently throw out the amendment or suspend its enforcement if declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.

BY PAIK JI-HWAN [[email protected]]