judicial

March 4 (Asia Today) — In U.S. history, only one president served four terms: Franklin D. Roosevelt. Facing the unprecedented economic crisis of the Great Depression, Roosevelt pushed forward sweeping New Deal legislation to revive the economy. With Congress controlled by his Democratic Party, the political environment initially seemed favorable.

However, Roosevelt’s New Deal soon faced a major obstacle: opposition from the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court. Several core New Deal laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

After winning re-election in 1936 with 61% of the vote, Roosevelt proposed a plan to expand the Supreme Court. Under the proposal, the president could appoint additional justices if sitting justices over the age of 70 years and six months did not retire. Because six justices were already over that age, the court could have expanded from nine members to as many as fifteen.

The proposal became known as “court packing” – an attempt to add justices favorable to the administration.

Opposition emerged from unexpected quarters. Not only Republicans but also members of Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party objected. Even Vice President John Nance Garner opposed the plan, warning it could create a dangerous precedent by allowing a president to reshape the judiciary for political purposes.

The proposal was ultimately withdrawn without a vote.

Another leader who reshaped the judiciary was Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. After taking power, Chávez expanded the number of Supreme Court justices and appointed individuals loyal to his government. Once the executive branch gained control over the judiciary, the court largely lost its ability to check the administration.

The consequences were severe. Venezuela’s political system deteriorated, and the power structure Chávez built has remained firmly in place under his successor, Nicolás Maduro.

In South Korea, a revision to the Court Organization Act aimed at expanding the number of Supreme Court justices passed the National Assembly on Feb. 28 with 173 votes in favor, 73 against and one abstention. The legislation now awaits promulgation by the president.

If enacted, the number of Supreme Court justices will increase from 14 to 26. President Lee Jae-myung would have the authority to appoint not only the 12 newly added justices but also replacements for 10 justices whose terms are set to expire, including Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. In total, the president could appoint 22 of the court’s 26 justices during his term.

Expanding the number of justices is not simply a matter of increasing seats.

In Venezuela, Chávez filled the court with allies and during his tenure the Supreme Court issued virtually no rulings against the government. The judiciary effectively lost its role as an independent check on executive power.

Even Roosevelt – widely admired in American history – saw his attempt to expand the Supreme Court become one of the most controversial episodes of his presidency.

History offers clear lessons about the consequences of governments attempting to dominate the judiciary. Once the independence of the courts is compromised and the balance of powers between branches of government is weakened, any leader risks being viewed as moving toward authoritarian rule.

— Kim Chae-yeon, Asia Today

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the publication.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

March 4 (Asia Today) — A series of legislative proposals by South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has sparked debate over judicial independence, as critics argue the measures could affect ongoing criminal cases involving President Lee Jae-myung.

The legislation includes proposals to expand the Supreme Court, introduce constitutional review of court rulings and abolish the crime of breach of trust. Legal experts say the bills, combined with calls to drop certain prosecutions, raise concerns that lawmakers could influence judicial proceedings.

Five criminal cases involving Lee are currently paused while he serves as president. As the National Assembly moves forward with legal revisions, some members of the legal community warn the changes could intersect with those trials.

National Assembly inquiry targets prosecution investigations

According to political sources, the Democratic Party has launched a parliamentary committee seeking a national investigation into what it calls politically motivated prosecutions under the previous administration.

The committee plans to examine several high-profile cases involving political figures, including the Daejang-dong development case and allegations involving transfers of funds to North Korea.

Party officials have also urged prosecutors to withdraw indictments in cases involving Lee.

The move has prompted criticism from legal observers who say the National Assembly should not interfere in criminal proceedings.

Judicial reform bills move quickly through parliament

The Democratic Party has advanced three major judicial reform bills in recent weeks.

The legislation would expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26, allow the Constitutional Court to review final court rulings through a judicial complaint system and introduce a new criminal offense for officials who deliberately misapply the law in judicial decisions or investigations.

Supporters say the reforms are aimed at addressing structural issues within the judiciary.

However, some legal analysts say the proposals could alter the balance of power within the court system and influence the legal environment surrounding ongoing cases.

Breach of trust law could affect corruption cases

Another proposal under discussion involves abolishing the criminal offense of breach of trust, which has been used in several major corruption investigations.

If the law were repealed, legal experts say it could affect cases related to development projects in Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong as well as allegations involving misuse of a provincial government corporate credit card.

Under South Korean law, when a criminal statute is repealed after an alleged offense, courts may dismiss charges related to that statute.

Concerns raised over separation of powers

Some lawyers say the pace and scope of the legislative initiatives raise broader concerns about the balance between the legislative and judicial branches.

“The outcome of trials should be determined in court,” one attorney who previously served as a senior prosecutor said. “If lawmakers change laws in ways that directly affect ongoing cases, it raises questions about the separation of powers.”

Supporters of the legislation argue the reforms are necessary to improve accountability within the justice system.

Debate over the proposals is expected to continue as the National Assembly reviews the measures during the current parliamentary session.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260305010001168

March 3 (Asia Today) — The conservative People Power Party held a rally at the National Assembly on Monday opposing three judicial reform laws passed by the Democratic Party majority, then took its protest to the streets of Yeouido.

Lawmakers, party members and supporters gathered on the steps of the National Assembly, holding red placards reading “Stop destroying the separation of powers” and “President, veto the three judicial destruction bills.” Protesters chanted slogans calling for the defense of judicial independence and the constitutional order.

The rally targeted what the party calls the “three judicial bills” led by the Democratic Party, including measures creating a crime of judicial distortion, allowing constitutional complaints against court rulings and expanding the number of Supreme Court justices.

Floor leader Song Eon-seok said the legislation undermines the separation of powers, accusing the ruling party of using its majority to weaken the judiciary.

“We tried to block this in the National Assembly, but our strength was insufficient,” Song said. “The only power that can stop this is the power of the people.”

Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk urged supporters to unite ahead of upcoming local elections, saying victory is necessary to protect what he described as liberal democratic values. He called on participants to march in an orderly manner so that citizens could understand the urgency of the party’s position.

Following the rally, party lawmakers began a walking protest in Yeouido, demanding that the president exercise his authority to request reconsideration of the bills.

The governing Democratic Party criticized the move. Spokesperson Kim Hyun-jung questioned whether the march was a genuine public appeal or a protest staged for far-right online broadcasters, saying lawmakers should focus on legislative work instead of taking to the streets.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260303010000598

Feb. 25 (Asia Today) — Senior judges from courts across South Korea expressed “serious regret” Tuesday over a package of judicial reform bills advanced by the ruling party, warning of potential side effects and calling for broader consultation.

At an extraordinary meeting held at the Supreme Court in Seoul, court presidents reviewed the so-called three judicial reform bills – which include creating a new offense of “distortion of law,” introducing a constitutional complaint system against court rulings and expanding the number of Supreme Court justices.

The meeting was led by Court Administration Chief Park Young-jae and attended by chief judges from courts nationwide.

In a joint statement, the judges said fundamental changes to the judicial system could produce irreversible and significant consequences and should be subject to in-depth discussion through a consultative body that includes multiple institutions and experts.

Regarding the proposed “distortion of law” offense, the judges said the elements of the crime remain abstract even under a revised draft and warned that the scope of punishment could be overly broad. They cautioned that the measure could lead to a surge in complaints and accusations against judges, potentially undermining the swift administration of justice and the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights.

On the proposed constitutional complaint system against court rulings, the court presidents said it could delay the finality of judgments and subject litigants to repeated proceedings.

While acknowledging the need to increase the number of justices at the Supreme Court of Korea, the judges said adding a large number in a short period could weaken trial quality. They suggested first expanding the bench by four justices and reviewing the impact before considering further increases.

In opening remarks, Park said the bills would significantly affect the judiciary’s core role in safeguarding constitutional order and citizens’ rights and stressed that the courts’ views should be reflected in the legislative process.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260225010007747