South Korea’s Constitutional Court upholds legislation limiting prosecutorial powers

It is crucial for South Korea to strike a balance that ensures the independence and integrity of its justice system while preventing the undue influence of career prosecutors on the nation's political landscape.

Maru Kim
Maru Kim

South Korea’s Constitutional Court has rejected petitions to nullify revisions to the Prosecutors’ Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, which significantly reduce the prosecution’s investigative powers. The legislation was designed to limit prosecution probes to only two types of crime: corruption and economic crime. Critics argue that these changes have led to the “complete deprivation of the prosecution’s investigative power.”

The prosecution service in South Korea has a long history of being closely tied to the political establishment, often serving as a legal services provider for the regime. Over the years, the prosecution has taken on an increasingly powerful role, pushing aside competing law enforcement agencies and expanding its jurisdiction into various areas, such as narcotics, organized crime, and civil administration.

While the prosecution has occasionally sparked controversy due to its overreach, it has also played a significant role in holding previous administrations accountable. Notably, during the presidencies of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, the prosecution was instrumental in investigating and ultimately incarcerating the presidents for their respective wrongdoings.

Despite the Constitutional Court’s decision to uphold the revised legislation, concerns remain about the current state of the prosecution’s powers in South Korea. Some argue that the country is now effectively ruled by career prosecutors, who are in charge of high-profile investigations involving both the ruling and opposition parties. This has led to public mistrust in the prosecution’s actions, as investigations are subject to skepticism and criticism due to perceived political motivations.

In light of these concerns, it remains to be seen how the balance between the prosecution’s powers and political influence will evolve in South Korea. As the nation grapples with the consequences of the Constitutional Court’s decision, the question of whether the prosecution’s rule will continue to dominate the justice system hangs in the balance. It is crucial for South Korea to strike a balance that ensures the independence and integrity of its justice system while preventing the undue influence of career prosecutors on the nation’s political landscape.

Share This Article
Follow:
Publisher
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *