Is the Introduction of ‘Judicial Petition’ a Constitutional Violation? Key Concerns from South Korea’s Court Administration

The Court Administration Office submitted a statement to the National Assembly, arguing that introducing judicial petitions could effectively create a four-tier court system, potentially violating the Constitution. They expressed concerns about possible litigation delays and excessive costs, urging careful consideration of the proposed amendment.

According to political sources on the 10th, the Court Administration Office submitted an opposing opinion to the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee regarding a partial amendment to the Constitutional Court Act aimed at introducing judicial petitions.

In their statement, the Court Administration Office asserted that allowing judicial petitions would require a constitutional amendment, as it cannot be introduced solely through legislation. Citing Article 101 of the Constitution, which designates the Supreme Court as the highest court, they argued that repeatedly trying cases beyond the Supreme Court would constitute a constitutional violation.

Judicial petitions: A de facto four-tier system raising concerns about litigation costs and workload overload
The statement also expressed concerns that introducing judicial petitions would effectively create a four-tier court system. The Court Administration Office noted that judicial petitions would substantively and normatively correspond to a four-tier system, potentially weakening national competitiveness through prolonged litigation.

They further criticized the proposal as a high-cost, low-efficiency system that would delay case resolutions and incur excessive litigation costs in nearly all cases.

The office referenced comments from Moon Hyung-bae, the former acting head of the Constitutional Court, and Kim Sun-soo, a former Supreme Court Justice, who raised cautionary views on judicial petitions in media contributions and interviews.

Last December, Moon stated at a Supreme Court public hearing that judicial petitions could lead to a de facto four-tier system, causing delays in case processing and increased litigation costs for the public while overloading the Constitutional Court. Kim argued in a media contribution that the introduction of judicial petitions should be seriously considered during constitutional amendments and is not an issue that can be addressed under the current Constitution.

The Court Administration Office also expressed difficulty in viewing the reasons for allowing judicial petitions as limited under the proposed amendment. They stated that while the amendment appears to restrict the reasons for allowing judicial petitions, the content is abstract and unclear, making it hard to argue that the reasons are genuinely limited.

Regarding the requirement in the amendment that states “when it is clear that a court’s ruling violates the Constitution and laws, infringing on the basic rights of the people,” they warned that this effectively allows for judicial petitions to be filed without restriction, raising concerns about frivolous lawsuits.

Constitutional Court in favor: Concerns about basic rights protection gaps if courts are excluded
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court expressed support for the introduction of judicial petitions in statements submitted to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee in May and November of last year.

The Constitutional Court explained that for the constitutional petition system to function properly, court rulings must also be included as subjects; excluding them could create a significant gap in the protection of basic rights.

They added their support for the amendment that removes the provision excluding court rulings from the subjects of constitutional petitions, noting that this amendment is expected to be presented and processed in the full meeting of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee as part of the ruling party’s judicial reform efforts.