Home > Opinion > Columns

Why the Democratic Party is fixated on confronting the judiciary

Published: 03 Mar. 2026, 00:03

Im Jang-hyuk

The author is a lawyer and the head of the political news department at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The Democratic Party (DP) has pushed through a set of sweeping judicial changes that would reshape a system built over the past eight decades. The measures introduce a de facto fourth level of review for constitutional complaints against court rulings, expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26 by 2030 and expose prosecutors and judges to criminal investigations on charges of distorting the law.

People Power Party lawmakers hold protest placards condemning the Democratic Party’s three judicial reform bills as a vote is held to end a filibuster on a proposed amendment to the Court Organization Act — which includes expanding the number of Supreme Court justices — during the eighth plenary session of the 432nd National Assembly (extraordinary session) at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Feb. 28. The related bills were subsequently passed. [NEWS1]

For criminal defendants, the changes mean that even after three trials, an unfavorable outcome can be challenged once more. They would also gain tools to file complaints against the prosecutors or judges involved in their cases, potentially subjecting them to investigation and punishment. The reforms can be framed as an effort to move closer to the judicial ideal articulated by William Blackstone — that it is better for 10 guilty people to escape than for one innocent person to suffer.

Yet, the satisfaction of legislative leaders may soon be offset by wider social costs. Precise estimates will come later from law and economics scholars, but disruption appears likely. Individual lawsuits could drag on longer, while conflicts outside the courtroom deepen and spread. As the attractiveness of careers as judges and prosecutors declines, the quality of judicial services may follow. If combined with the party’s push to abolish the prosecution’s supplementary investigation authority, the result could be a severe negative synergy.

There is little sign of deliberation within the ruling party’s 162-seat majority. Public hearings became forums of like-minded participants, while concerns raised by legal professionals and academics were largely ignored. Rep. Kwak Sang-eon, the only Democratic lawmaker to vote against the charge of legal distortion on Feb. 26, said he saw the finalized bill only a day earlier at a party meeting. Lawmakers who voiced reservations were quickly targeted by hard-line supporters.

The People Power Party argues that the legislative drive is intended to eliminate President Lee Jae Myung’s judicial risks. With the passage of the three bills, Lee — whose five trials on eight charges are currently suspended — could use complaints alleging legal distortion or constitutional petitions if proceedings resume. He would also gain the authority to appoint up to 22 Supreme Court justices during his term, shaping the court ahead of any future appeals. The DP has even discussed pressuring prosecutors to withdraw indictments, giving some weight to the opposition’s criticism.

Still, it is unclear whether the legislative push truly serves the president’s interests. Shortly after his election, Lee said he hoped bills related to his personal legal matters would not be rushed. He has repeatedly called for deliberation on judicial reform. According to an interview with presidential chief of staff Kang Hoon-sik last month, Lee believes he must build a successful administration almost obsessively — and large-scale judicial disruption would hardly help.

Clues to the political logic emerged recently from Rep. Choo Mi-ae, chair of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee and a central figure in the initiative. At a book event on Feb. 22, she said she had no intention of stepping down from her current post and added that Chief Justice Jo Hee-de “should not feel at ease.” The remark, made as she signaled a run for governor of Gyeonggi, was interpreted by senior lawmakers as a message that the committee chairmanship would be used to mobilize hard-line supporters.

Why, then, did more moderate lawmakers fail to intervene? The explanation goes beyond pressure from activist supporters. In a conversation, a three-term Democratic lawmaker described the Supreme Court’s decision last May to overturn a lower-court ruling and send Lee’s election law case back for retrial. Many within the party believe the decision reflected an intention by Chief Justice Jo to remove Lee from politics. Although Lee ultimately won the presidency and former President Yoon Suk Yeol was later sentenced to life imprisonment at his first trial on insurrection charges, the belief in a judicial plot remains widespread.

Jung Chung-rae, leader of the Democratic Party, delivers congratulatory remarks at the “2026 Seoul Women’s Advancement Rally” marking International Women’s Day at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building in Yeouido, western Seoul, on March 2. [NEWS1]

This worldview may appear irrational, but it reflects the enduring power of conspiracy thinking. In “Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational” (2022), American science writer Michael Shermer notes that such beliefs persist partly because some conspiracies do turn out to be real. Many Koreans recall that speculation about a possible declaration of martial law by Yoon in the summer of 2024 was dismissed as a rumor — until the events of Dec. 3 brought it into reality.

Based on similar fears, many Democratic lawmakers share the concern that if left unchecked, the courts could attempt to build a “judicial republic,” surpassing what they call a prosecutorial state. For them, the legacy of the previous administration remains the root of political distrust and defensive action.

The opposition, meanwhile, has struggled to distance itself from that legacy and risks further decline. If current trends continue, the DP could consolidate control over local governments in the June 3 elections. By then, the prosecution and the courts may have lost much of their capacity to check political power.

The space for the separation of powers is narrowing.

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.