Democrats must respect judicial independence

Calls within the ruling Democratic Party (DP) to impeach Chief Justice Jo Hee-de have intensified following an appeals court's acquittal of Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon on charges of violating the Political Funds Act.

Immediately after the ruling, DP Supreme Council member Han Min-soo wrote on social media that there was "one more reason to impeach" Jo. Fellow Supreme Council member Choi Min-hee also urged impeachment, warning that failure to act would invite retaliation. DP leader Kim Min-seok has been more cautious about impeachment but has increased pressure by raising the possibility of a parliamentary investigation.

Their remarks mislead the public, as though the chief justice controlled the appeals court's decision.

It is not unusual for trial and appellate courts to reach different conclusions as evidence and testimony change. That is precisely why judicial systems provide multiple levels of review. Oh's guilt or innocence will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court.

Yet every court must decide cases independently. Even the chief justice cannot interfere with lower court rulings. This is a fundamental principle of judicial independence, one that the DP appears unwilling to recognize.

It is understandable that both political camps would react sensitively to Oh's acquittal, given its potential implications for future elections. But interfering with judicial decisions for political advantage undermines democracy.

The DP has repeatedly crossed this line.

Before the ruling, Kim declared that a Seoul mayoral by-election next year was "99.99 percent" certain. DP lawmaker Seo Young-kyo, chair of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, insisted that Oh should receive a prison sentence.

Such statements by the ruling party leader and the chair of a committee responsible for safeguarding constitutional principles disregard the independence of the judiciary.

The opposition has understandably criticized the DP for praising rulings as judicial justice when favorable while denouncing unfavorable decisions as politically motivated and threatening judges.

The DP should recognize that its declining public support reflects, in part, its casual treatment of laws and institutions essential to public life.

Its reaction to Oh's acquittal may also reinforce suspicions that the dispute between the president and chief justice over Supreme Court appointments is driven by a desire to reshape the judiciary in the ruling camp's favor.

To dispel such concerns, the DP must clearly commit to respecting judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's eventual ruling, regardless of the political consequences.

Judicial independence requires respect for the legal process even when its outcomes are politically inconvenient. That principle should apply equally to every party.