Constitutional Court Dismisses PPP's Competence Dispute Petition Over 'Fabricated Prosecution' Parliamentary Probe

The Constitutional Court has dismissed a competence dispute petition filed by lawmakers of the People Power Party (PPP) who protested the National Assembly plenary passage of a plan for a parliamentary investigation—led by the Democratic Party in March—into suspicions surrounding fabricated prosecutions by political prosecutors under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration.

On the 24th, the Constitutional Court dismissed in a unanimous 9-0 decision the competence dispute petition filed against National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik by seven lawmakers, including Kwak Kyu-tak, the chief legal adviser of the PPP.

PPP lawmakers had filed the competence dispute petition on March 25, arguing that Speaker Woo's passage and declaration of approval for the "Proposal for Approving the Parliamentary Investigation Plan to Reveal the Truth of Suspicious Fabricated Prosecutions by Political Prosecutors under the Yoon Suk Yeol Administration" on March 22 violated their rights to deliberate and vote on bills.

At the time, PPP lawmakers opposed the plan by staging a filibuster, claiming it was a "parliamentary investigation to justify the dropping of charges against President Lee Jae-myung." However, the pan-ruling camp, including the Democratic Party, terminated the filibuster through a vote and proceeded to process the plan.

Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court concluded that there was no room for the voting rights of the PPP lawmakers to have been infringed.

The court explained, "An unlimited debate was conducted normally upon the request of the PPP lawmakers, and the PPP lawmakers voluntarily walked out and did not participate in the vote. The mere fact that they did not exercise their right to deliberate and vote despite being given the opportunity to do so does not make it possible to recognize an infringement of authority or a clear and present risk thereof."

Lawmaker Kwak and others also argued that the parliamentary investigation into the fabricated prosecution was illegal because its purpose was to "intervene in ongoing investigations or trials."

However, the Constitutional Court stated, "This is an argument asserting that there are problems with the content of the resolved agenda item. As long as the agenda item was submitted to the plenary session, debated, and voted upon, and an opportunity to participate was granted, the mere circumstance that there are issues with the content of the agenda does not mean that the possibility of an infringement on deliberation and voting rights is recognized."

In addition, the Constitutional Court noted that, unlike general special committees, the establishment and composition of a parliamentary investigation special committee do not require a resolution by the plenary session.

Lawmaker Kwak and others had also argued that the special committee on the parliamentary investigation was initially established without a separate plenary resolution, and therefore the parliamentary investigation plan submitted by a special committee lacking legitimacy was brought to the plenary session and processed.

The Constitutional Court explained, "According to Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the Act on the Inspection and Investigation of State Administration, a parliamentary investigation special committee is formed by the Speaker of the National Assembly in consultation with the representative members of each negotiation group. Unlike special committees under Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the National Assembly Act, which are formed by a resolution of the plenary session, its establishment and composition do not require a plenary resolution."

Meanwhile, the People Power Party initially opposed the formation of the parliamentary investigation special committee itself, but subsequently participated in the committee to keep the Democratic Party's unilateral proceedings in check.

The special committee on the fabricated prosecution investigation adopted the parliamentary investigation results report led by the Democratic Party on April 30 and concluded its investigation.

The special committee subsequently filed criminal complaints against 31 individuals, including Prosecutor Park Sang-yong and former Ssangbangwool Chairman Kim Sung-tae, on charges of refusing to take an oath during the parliamentary investigation, perjury, and failure to attend.
 
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.