"Presidential Appointment Power First" vs. "Reasons for Rejection Should Have Been Given"

[Anchor]

As the conflict between the president and the chief justice over the appointment of a Supreme Court justice escalates into a direct clash, we asked constitutional experts for their views. While some argue that the president's appointment power takes precedence and the chief justice should accept the president's will, others contend that if the president rejects a candidate, at least the reasons for doing so should be clearly stated.

Reporter Shin Yong-il has the details.

[Reporter]

Some constitutional scholars argue that between the president's appointment power and the chief justice's right to recommend candidates, the right of recommendation cannot override the appointment power.

They maintain that while the chief justice recommending candidates serves as an important safeguard to prevent the administration from taking control of the judiciary through so-called ideological appointments, it is merely a supplementary mechanism, and the president's ultimate appointment is the essential authority.

[Lim Ji-bong / Professor, Sogang University Law School : Throughout the entire process of appointing a Supreme Court justice, the president's appointment power stands as the highest authority, exerting influence over the entire appointment procedure.]

However, another view is that the appointment power and the recommendation power are not in a hierarchical relationship, and that the appointment power is rather formal.

Under this logic, just as the president appoints the three constitutional court justices designated by the chief justice without alteration, the president cannot reject a Supreme Court justice candidate recommended by the chief justice either.

It is also suggested that even if the president can decide whether to make an appointment, the president cannot interfere with the chief justice's right of recommendation, and even if an appointment is refused, the reasons must be explicitly stated.

[Cha Jin-ah / Professor, Korea University Law School : By giving specific reasons, wouldn't it be possible to know why this person is not suitable? Only then can another suitable person be recommended again.]

Experts agreed that as this conflict falls into a stalemate, likely leading to a prolonged vacancy of Supreme Court justices, both the presidential office and the Supreme Court should find a compromise as soon as possible.

(Video Reporter: Kim Han-gyul, Video Editing: Kim Jong-mi)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.