Speaker's remarks undermine the Constitution

National Assembly Speaker Cho Jeong-sik stirred controversy at his first press conference since taking office by proposing that next year, when no national elections are scheduled, would be an ideal time to pursue constitutional revision through a special committee. Asked whether he opposed amending the Constitution to allow the incumbent president another consecutive term, Cho replied that the issue "ultimately depends on public opinion and the sovereign choice of the people."

The speaker is entitled to advocate constitutional reform. But suggesting that an incumbent president's eligibility for another term is merely a matter of political agreement disregards the speaker's duty to uphold both the spirit and the text of the Constitution. As head of the legislature, he should defend constitutional principles rather than blur them.

Article 128, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution clearly states that any amendment extending a president's term or changing the rules on reelection does not apply to the president in office when the amendment is proposed. The provision was designed to prevent those in power from using constitutional revision to prolong their rule, reflecting Korea's determination to break with the legacy of dictatorship and long-term authoritarian government. Even if the presidential system were changed to allow two four-year terms or consecutive reelection, the revised rules have always been understood to apply only to future presidents. Any interpretation that goes beyond this constitutional limit runs counter to the rule of law.

Constitutional reform aimed at reducing the concentration of presidential power, strengthening decentralization or expanding fundamental rights deserves serious discussion. But once the incumbent president's political future enters the debate, constitutional revision is inevitably drawn into partisan conflict. The legitimacy of reform itself is called into question.

The Democratic Party has dismissed opposition claims that constitutional revision could be used to extend President Lee Jae Myung's tenure as a conspiracy theory. Yet remarks by a National Assembly speaker from the ruling party only fuel such suspicions. President Lee has also failed to remove the ambiguity. During the presidential campaign, he said amendments do not apply to the sitting president as the Constitution clearly states, but also argued that if constitutional revision reflected the people's will, following the revised Constitution would better embody popular sovereignty.

The constitutional ban on extending an incumbent president's tenure embodies the hard-won legacy of Korea's democratization movement. Questioning that safeguard is not simply another political argument but a challenge to a fundamental constitutional principle. Anyone who believes the public will accept attempts to weaken that principle is making a serious miscalculation.