Chief Justice Jo Hee-de arrives for work at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on Sept. 22.NEWS1
The Supreme Court and the government continue to lock horns over Chief Justice Jo Hee-de's nominee for the top bench, with the Blue House expressing "deep regret" that Jo holds a view that "contradicts the Constitution."
“The official actions of the president must be made in writing and countersigned by the prime minister and relevant members of the Cabinet,” Jo said in a statement through the Supreme Court Tuesday.
“The only document related to this request for a new nomination is the ‘Request for renomination of a Supreme Court justice candidate’ dated Aug. 28, 2026,” he continued. “It does not state the specific reasons for requesting a new nomination or the constitutional grounds for doing so.”
Jo underscored that he cannot comply with the request, citing that he could “not find any other specific constitutional grounds or reasons that would justify the request for renomination.”
The presidential office responded later Tuesday, expressing “deep regret” over Jo’s refusal to nominate another candidate to succeed former Supreme Court Justice Rho Tae-ak.
The presidential office on Aug. 28 asked the chief justice to nominate another candidate instead of Son Bong-kie, chief judge of the Daegu District Court. The office did not submit a motion seeking parliamentary approval of Son’s appointment.
The office pointed to the vacancy left by Rho’s retirement on March 3, which has remained unfilled for more than six months.
“At a time when each Supreme Court justice handles 3,500 to 4,600 cases a year, leaving one seat vacant directly infringes on the public’s right to a speedy trial,” the office said.
“The chief justice’s statement reflects a view that his authority to nominate Supreme Court justices takes precedence over the president’s appointment authority, which contradicts the Constitution,” the office said. “The notion that the president must appoint whomever the chief justice nominates would effectively nullify the appointment authority of a president elected by the people.”
Chief Justice Jo Hee-de arrives for work at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on Sept. 22.NEWS1
The office also stressed that Jo must acknowledge the public impact of his actions.
“The chief justice must recognize that a prolonged vacancy on the Supreme Court ultimately harms the public and should no longer allow the current situation to continue,” the presidential office said.
After Jo had nominated Son, the presidential office said the nomination “did not sufficiently meet procedural requirements.”
It cited Jo’s decision to submit the nomination in writing on Aug. 18 without substantive consultations with the presidential office, more than seven months after the Supreme Court Judges Personnel Committee made its recommendations in January.
While it is customary for the chief justice to visit the president and make the recommendation in person, Jo's recommendation was delivering in writing, a move that defies precedent, as the top justice usually coordinates recommendations with the presidential office beforehand.
The top office argued that, based on Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the chief justice’s authority to nominate Supreme Court justices and the president’s authority to appoint them should be mutually respected. It called on Jo to respect the recommendations made by the judiciary committee and promptly begin the process of nominating another candidate.
Jo previously said he was “reviewing the details” of the presidential office’s request and would announce an official position.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
