Home > Opinion > Columns

Only path for People Power Party to show relevance

Published: 30 Mar. 2026, 00:04

Im Jang-hyuk

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

Two acquaintances recently experienced the consequences of prosecutors’ requests for supplementary investigations. A, a corporate executive supporting three children and his in-laws, was investigated by a Seoul police station early last year after the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport raised questions about his first apartment subscription. Around the same time, B, a victim of an investment scam, filed a complaint at a provincial police station. More than a year later, A received a nonreferral decision and B secured a referral, but both cases remain with the police after prosecutors demanded further investigation. A became entangled in suspicions surrounding former ministerial nominee Lee Hye-hoon’s alleged improper subscription, while B has been locked in a difficult legal fight against a former judge turned lawyer representing the accused. Both have spent tens of millions of won on legal fees.

Jang Dong-hyeok, leader of the People Power Party (right), prepares to speak at a Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly on the morning of March 26. [LIM HYUN-DONG]

A said he simply hopes the case moves to prosecutors soon, noting that even if indicted, it could take at least three years to reach a final ruling. Legal costs alone, he said, could climb into the hundreds of millions of won. Still, he added that he would pursue the case to the end, as his entire assets are at stake. B said he has largely given up on recovering his losses, noting that the accused has already sold his home and appears unwilling to pay. Even if he wins a criminal case and seeks civil damages, he said, it could take a decade.

Younger prosecutors increasingly prefer to request supplementary investigations rather than conduct them directly, avoiding labor intensive and emotionally demanding work. As the Democratic Party (DP) pushed to strip the prosecution of its investigative powers, the number of such requests rose sharply. According to data from DP lawmaker Yang Bu-nam’s office, prosecutors requested supplementary investigations in 14.7 percent of the 752,560 cases referred by police last year.

If prosecutors’ authority to request supplementary investigations is abolished entirely, citizens could find themselves trapped in an endless loop within the justice system. The costs for individuals and society would be substantial. The DP has also proposed transferring the police’s long-standing shortage of legally trained investigators to a new Major Crimes Investigation Office and removing prosecutors’ authority to direct special judicial police, a move critics say could invite both abuse of power and bureaucratic inaction.

The process that has shaken the foundations of the justice system has been relatively simple. It combined the fervor of hard-line supporters, energized by conspiracy theories and inflammatory rhetoric from YouTuber Kim Eo-jun, with the determination of a small group of politicians, including party leader Jung Chung-rae, Judiciary Committee chair Choo Mi-ae and committee floor leader Kim Yong-min. Some former judges and police-turned-politicians have reinforced these arguments, suggesting flawed investigations can be corrected in court.

Many lawmakers in the party have remained silent despite recognizing the potential side effects. Fear of alienating core supporters may have discouraged opposition, while the government and presidential office did not act decisively to halt the push. One lawmaker, who recently experienced a police investigation, reportedly admitted in private that the supplementary investigation system is necessary.

How did a party of more than 150 lawmakers come to pass such self-defeating legislation while effectively captured by online personalities and hard-line supporters? Would the outcome have been different under a parliamentary system?

In a presidential system, where selecting a single leader becomes the central goal, competition for dominance begins immediately among potential candidates. This dynamic fosters political fandoms that defend specific figures while excluding others. It also creates an environment in which online influencers can exert outsized influence behind the scenes.

By contrast, in parliamentary systems, policy decisions reflect the collective will of the majority party, encouraging internal debate and competition. Because the party as a whole, rather than a single leader, is central, it is more difficult for external figures to shape its direction.

This context explains the attention drawn to National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik’s call to open discussions on constitutional revision. He has argued for pursuing minimal, broadly agreed changes that would allow citizens to reshape the political system themselves.

For the People Power Party, a decision now remains. Supporting a constitutional amendment requiring parliamentary approval for martial law declarations could help the party emerge from internal controversy with a clearer justification. Given that such amendments require approval from two-thirds of lawmakers, this may be the only opportunity for the opposition to demonstrate its relevance in the current Assembly.

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.