Supreme Court to Hold Emergency Meeting of Court Chiefs Tomorrow to Discuss Response to Three Judicial Reform Bills

With the ruling bloc set to bring to a plenary session and pass the so-called "three judicial reform bills"—covering the offense of distorting the law, the judgment constitutional complaint system, and the expansion of Supreme Court Justices—court chiefs from across the country will hold an emergency meeting to discuss how to respond, The Financial News reported.
According to the legal community on the 24th, the Supreme Court of Korea will convene a National Court Chiefs Meeting at 2 p.m. on the 25th at its Seocho-dong courthouse. The meeting will be chaired by National Court Administration head Park Young-jae and is intended to gather internal opinions from courts at all levels on the three judicial reform bills.
The National Court Chiefs Meeting is usually held twice a year on a regular basis, but this session has been called as an extraordinary meeting. The situation has become urgent after the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) announced plans to submit to the plenary session its judicial reform package, centered on creating the offense of distorting the law, introducing a judgment constitutional complaint system, and expanding the number of Supreme Court Justices.
At last September's National Court Chiefs Meeting, participants concluded that the judiciary's involvement was essential in discussions on judicial reform measures, including the expansion of Supreme Court Justices. Attention is now focused on whether the courts will again publicly voice concerns at this meeting.
The National Assembly plans to introduce and pass the three judicial reform bills at its plenary session on this day. The judiciary has repeatedly stressed that the bills may be unconstitutional and could have a profound impact on the entire judicial system and on citizens' rights, arguing that more thorough debate is needed.
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on his way to work the previous day, "These are serious matters that may amount to constitutional amendments and could directly harm the public," adding, "Some are citing the case of the Federal Republic of Germany, but our Constitution is completely different from Germany's in substance." However, he made no additional comments when arriving at work on this day.
scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter