Blue House senior spokesperson Kang Yu-jung briefs reporters on Supreme Court justice nominees at the Blue House press room in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Aug. 28.YONHAP
The president rejected one of the Supreme Court chief justice's two recommendations for new members to the top bench, the first time a presidential veto has been issued on a nominee.
The Blue House said Friday it will not submit a request for parliamentary consent for Son Bong-kie, chief judge of the Daegu District Court, whom Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de had recommended to succeed former Supreme Court Justice Rho Tae-ak. Jo had recommended Son and Kim to President Lee Jae Myung in writing on Aug. 18.
The Blue House will, however, move forward with the nomination of Kim Sung-soo, chief judge of the Seoul High Court, who was recommended to succeed outgoing Justice Lee Heung-gu.
“Of the two Supreme Court justice nominees, we have decided not to submit a request for parliamentary consent for Son Bong-kie,” Blue House senior spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said at a briefing Friday. “The recommendation process for Rho’s successor was not sufficiently complete from a procedural standpoint. We have asked Chief Justice Jo Hee-de to recommend another candidate for the Supreme Court.”
“As for Kim Sung-soo, who was recommended to succeed Justice Lee Heung-gu, an agreement was reached through consultations, so we will submit the request for parliamentary consent to the National Assembly today,” she said. “The administration’s first appointment of Supreme Court justices must be acceptable to the public not only in terms of the outcome but also in terms of the legitimacy of the process.”
The ongoing spat between the Blue House and Chief Justice Jo goes beyond the nomination itself, with the administration questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court appointment process. The two sides have been locking horns since earlier this month after Jo recommended Son and Kim for the bench without substantive consultation with the president.
“The practice of presidents and chief justices consulting each other before a formal recommendation has reflected the constitutional principle that the respective powers of state institutions should be mutually respected,” she said. “The Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee submitted its list of candidates in January, but Jo waited more than seven months before making a recommendation.”
“Then on Aug. 18, without any substantive consultation having taken place, he unilaterally recommended Son in writing,” she continued. “The consultation practice has served as a procedural safeguard preventing either the appointing authority or the recommending authority from determining the composition of the country’s highest court on its own. It has also substantively supported judicial independence. It is deeply regrettable that the judiciary abandoned that practice, because doing so weakens the very foundation that has supported judicial independence.”
Chief Justice Jo Hee-de speaks to reporters as he arrives for work at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on Aug. 21.NEWS1
The Blue House also questioned the fairness of the nomination process, citing revelations that the National Court Administration had contacted candidates already on the short list about restarting the selection process.
“It was confirmed at the National Assembly that, just before Son Bong-kie was recommended, the National Court Administration individually contacted candidates who had already been recommended by the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee under the Court Organization Act and asked about the possibility of restarting the recommendation process,” Kang said. “We believe that approaching individual candidates about a possible process that would exclude people who had already been properly recommended undermined trust in the fairness of the appointment process.”
Asked whether it was appropriate to request a new recommendation, Kang said that “Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly upon the recommendation of the chief justice.” She added, “The president is a representative of the people directly elected by the sovereign people, while the chief justice is appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly.”
“The powers to recommend and appoint are vested in different constitutional institutions under the principle of separation of powers,” she continued. “In light of the principle of popular sovereignty, requesting a new recommendation does not replace or nullify the president’s appointment authority. Rather, it is a power that supports the proper exercise of that authority.”
Meanwhile, the National Court Administration began reviewing the Blue House’s request for a new recommendation following Kang’s briefing Friday, according to legal sources.
The administration is expected to consider several options, including reconvening the Supreme Court justice candidate recommendation committee formed in January or forming a new committee and restarting the process from scratch. Another possibility is that Jo recommends one of the other candidates already short-listed by the committee.
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.
