The National Assembly approved Park Sang-ok as a Supreme Court justice on Wednesday, 100 days after his nomination.
The approval was made possible as National Assembly Speaker Chung Eui-hwa put the bill to vote in his capacity as the parliamentary chair on the last day of the extra parliamentary session. This is the first time since 2012 that a vote was taken on action by a National Assembly speaker. The opposition parties, including the New Politics Alliance for Democracy, walked out of the session in a boycott and Park passed in a 151-6 vote with one abstention.
Allegations of Park’s involvement in the cover-up of the police torture and death of a student protestor in 1987 should have prevented his nomination in the first place. While the ruling Saenuri Party argues that there is no evidence directly linking Park, then an entry-level prosecutor, with the cover-up of Park Jong-chul’s death by torture, such suspicions should have been sufficient to rule him out as a nominee for the highest court.
Besmirched with allegations of involvement in a brutal case of human rights abuse, Park was clearly not a suitable choice for a seat in the Supreme Court. The NPAD cannot escape responsibility for its poor performance, dragging out the process and offering various suspicions but being unable to present any decisive evidence against Park. When it appeared that the approval of Park’s nomination was inevitable, NPAD should have participated in the vote instead of boycotting it. Let your opposition be counted in a vote ― that is how a mature democracy works.
An unsavory precedent of a National Assembly chairman presenting a bill for vote has been set. The current National Assembly law stipulates the conditions that warrant such an action: National disaster, war and other emergencies. While the unusually protracted vacancy of a Supreme Court justice seat is not an ideal situation, it hardly meets the conditions set by the law. The precedent has created the danger that the ruling Saenuri Party may be tempted to resort to pushing through controversial bills in a similar manner. It would be an unfortunate step backward in the democratic process if the ruling party does exploit the system again.
