Bill to Abolish Prosecutors' Supplementary Investigation Rights Gathers Momentum

Bill to Abolish Prosecutors' Supplementary Investigation Rights Sparks 'Speedy Legislation' Push Led by Ruling Party Hardliners

With the launch of the Prosecution Office scheduled for October 2nd, the debate over legislation has intensified with the proposal of a bill to completely abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights. Lawmakers from the hardline faction of the Democratic Party of Korea and the Jo Guk Innovation Party have jointly proposed the bill, advocating for its swift passage through a 'speedy legislation' approach. This move is seen as transcending the ongoing discussion on adjusting prosecutorial powers, starkly highlighting the political divide surrounding the establishment of a new judicial system. The bill's core objective is to entirely exclude supplementary investigation rights for prosecutors transferred to the new Prosecution Office. This suggests a systemic shift where the Prosecution Office would concentrate solely on its core indictment duties, entrusting investigative functions to agencies like the police. A source involved in proposing the bill emphasized, "This is an unavoidable measure to resolve public suspicion and enhance the efficiency of the judicial system." This initiative has emerged as a key issue in the upcoming August 17th party convention, with calls for its adoption as a joint party platform by the ruling coalition parties. However, given the differing views within the political sphere regarding the timing of the bill's passage, the legislative process is anticipated to be challenging.

Background of Supplementary Investigation Rights Abolition and Key Bill Contents

The proposal of this amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act is an extension of long-standing discussions regarding the adjustment of prosecutorial investigative powers. In particular, differing opinions on the role and functions of the new Prosecution Office, set to launch in October, have directly triggered the bill's proposal. Under the existing Criminal Procedure Act, prosecutors, as the primary indictment authority, bore ultimate responsibility for investigations and could conduct supplementary investigations as needed. However, this bill completely abolishes these supplementary investigation rights for prosecutors, mandating the new Prosecution Office to focus exclusively on filing and maintaining indictments. It aims to minimize direct prosecutorial involvement in the investigative process of proving criminal charges and to strengthen the role of the police as the primary investigative agency. The bill's essence is to refrain from granting supplementary investigation rights to prosecutors belonging to the new Prosecution Office. This is interpreted as an effort to enhance the fairness and objectivity of investigations and to prevent the potential for abuse of power by dispersing prosecutorial authority. Furthermore, it is intended to reduce cases where innocent citizens are harmed by unnecessary investigative processes and to establish more prompt and efficient judicial procedures.

Specifically, lawmakers such as Kim Yong-min of the Democratic Party of Korea, Park Eun-jeong of the Jo Guk Innovation Party, and Choi Hyuk-jin, an independent, jointly proposed the bill on the 26th, detailing these provisions. They assessed it as "opening a path to early relief for innocent citizens" and stressed the necessity of the bill's passage. Calls have also been made for the swift formation of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee in the latter half of the year to ensure prompt bill passage. These movements are occurring within the broader framework of 'prosecutorial reform,' aligning with the ambition expressed by Jo Guk Innovation Party lawmaker Ryu Ji-hyun to "realize a fair and just society through political and judicial reform." Additionally, Jo Guk Innovation Party lawmaker Jang Jung-soon's prioritization of passing the 'Kim Keon-hee Special Prosecutor Act' demonstrates the opposition bloc's high interest in judicial issues related to the current administration and their resolve to establish the necessary institutional foundation. For Rep. Ryu Ji-hyun, who has expressed interest in the real estate policy field as a former member of the Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice, this bill could also positively impact efforts to strengthen regulations on concealing proceeds from real estate-related crimes and establish thorough recovery systems.

Debate and Social Impact

The debate surrounding the bill to abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights is sharply divided. Proponents within the ruling coalition argue that it is an unavoidable measure to prevent prosecutorial abuse of power and enhance investigative efficiency and fairness. They particularly emphasize a 'speedy legislation' approach, insisting that the bill must be passed before the new Prosecution Office launches in October. Voices like former Democratic Party leader Chung Sye-kyun are strongly advocating for its adoption as a "joint party platform of the ruling coalition parties," signaling a commitment to concentrate party power towards the overarching goal of prosecutorial reform. They further highlight its positive effects, stating that it "opens a path to early relief for innocent citizens."

Conversely, critical perspectives exist regarding these moves. While Prime Minister Han Duck-soo previously described "prosecutorial reform" as the government's stance, caution is being raised concerning the 'complete abolition' approach of this bill. Former prosecutors with extensive investigative experience express concerns that abolishing supplementary investigation rights could create investigative gaps or lead to delays in case processing due to insufficient police investigative expertise. Some also point out that a weakening of the prosecution's direct investigative capabilities could reduce their responsiveness to organized crime and advanced offenses. Critically, the potential for the system to be abused for political purposes, such as driving the 'Kim Keon-hee's stock manipulation allegations special prosecutor,' cannot be overlooked. Former Prime Minister nominee Han Sung-sook's remarks on a special prosecutor bill related to 'prosecution withdrawal' – stating, "it is right to uncover public suspicions" – indicate that societal interest and diverse interpretations coexist regarding these judicial reform attempts. The passage of this bill is expected to further accelerate the existing trend of strengthening police investigative authority and concentrating prosecutorial indictment powers, while also bringing about structural changes across the entire judicial system, including redefining inter-agency relationships and decentralizing power. This will likely spur in-depth discussions on the division of roles and cooperation methods among prosecutors, police, and the newly launched Prosecution Office.

Future Legislative Procedures and Outlook

With the bill to abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights jointly proposed on the 26th, it will now undergo review by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee before heading to a plenary session vote. The core of the ruling coalition's 'speedy legislation' push is for this bill to be rapidly deliberated by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee immediately upon the reconvening of the National Assembly in the latter half of the year. Currently, strong momentum for the bill's passage is evident within the ruling coalition, with active support expressed by parties like the Jo Guk Innovation Party. Consequently, considerable political dynamics are expected to influence the composition of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and the agenda-setting process. In particular, if the goal of 'joint party platform adoption by the ruling coalition parties,' emphasized by former Democratic Party leader Chung Sye-kyun, is achieved, the possibility of the bill's passage will significantly increase.

However, opposition and cautious views concerning the bill's comprehensive nature and procedural legitimacy cannot be ignored. If opposition from other parties or disagreements within the ruling party arise, the bill's passage could be delayed or amendments could be made. Furthermore, with the October 2nd launch of the Prosecution Office looming, the parliamentary schedule is expected to proceed at a rapid pace. If the bill is not passed as planned, confusion regarding the continuation of prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights may persist even after the Prosecution Office begins operations. Therefore, the future schedule of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee meetings, shifts in each party's stance, and discussions within civil society will be critical variables determining the bill's passage. While the possibility of swift passage, propelled by the ruling coalition's proactive drive, cannot be ruled out, there are also concerns raised that sufficient deliberation by all sectors of society is necessary, given the gravity of an issue that fundamentally alters the judicial system.