National Assembly Discussions Intensify on Abolishing Prosecution's Supplementary Investigation Rights

Bill to Abolish Prosecution's Supplementary Investigation Rights and Reduce Detention Period Gathers Steam in National Assembly

Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act and the Prosecutors' Office Act, which include the abolition of the prosecution's supplementary investigation rights and the reduction of detention periods – considered the final tasks of prosecutorial reform – have officially begun to be discussed in the National Assembly. As discussions are proceeding at the parliamentary level without a government-submitted bill, attention is focused on the future legislative process.

The tabling of this amendment was spearheaded by hardline lawmakers from the ruling party on June 28, 2024. In a move to break the deadlock in previous prosecutorial reform discussions and limit the prosecution's direct investigative scope, these efforts have become concrete. Notably, amid the recent issues surrounding the shortage of ballots during the June 3 local elections and ongoing parliamentary investigations into the National Election Commission, calls for reform across the prosecution and judicial systems are spreading, giving momentum to related bills. Furthermore, political issues such as the opposition party's demand for a 'special prosecutor to restore political rights' are intricately intertwined with discussions on adjusting prosecutorial investigative powers, heightening tension across the political landscape.

Key Contents of the Bill and Expected Repercussions

The core of this amendment can be broadly divided into two points. First, it aims to abolish the prosecution's 'supplementary investigation rights.' These rights refer to the authority of prosecutors to conduct additional investigations into cases they have indicted, independent of court decisions. If these rights are abolished, prosecutors will be subject to court rulings after making an indictment decision and will find it difficult to conduct further investigations or inquiries. This is interpreted as an effort to further limit the prosecution's direct investigative capabilities and concentrate the final authority to conclude investigations with the courts.

Second, the bill proposes reducing the suspect detention period from the current maximum of 30 days to 20 days. The reduction in detention period aims to strengthen the protection of suspects' human rights and minimize disadvantages arising from prolonged detention. However, concerns are also raised that this could hinder the investigative efficiency of investigative agencies.

The key provisions of these amendments focus on reducing the prosecution's investigative and indictment powers while strengthening the rights of suspects. In particular, the abolition of supplementary investigation rights is expected to preemptively block any possibility of prosecutorial intervention in post-indictment investigations, thereby weakening the prosecution's influence over court judgments. This aligns with one of the major goals of prosecutorial reform: 'separation of indictment and investigation,' or the principle of 'concentrating the final indictment authority with the judiciary.' Meanwhile, some argue that reducing the detention period could lead to delays in investigations, prompting calls for the development of additional institutional safeguards to compensate for this.

Debate and Positions from Various Sectors

The debate surrounding the proposed bill is sharply divided. Hardliners within the ruling party and some civic groups that proposed the amendment argue that it is an unavoidable measure to complete prosecutorial reform. They contend that the prosecution's supplementary investigation rights could be misused for 'prosecutorial convenience' or 'suppression of the opposition,' and that reducing the detention period contributes to the advancement of human rights. Furthermore, in the context of growing demands for reform of the National Election Commission following the June 3 local election ballot shortage incident, they emphasize the need to push forward with the bill as part of institutional improvements to restore public trust in the judicial system as a whole.

Conversely, the prosecution, conservative opposition parties, and some members of the legal community are strongly opposing the bill. They express concern that abolishing supplementary investigation rights could create gaps in criminal investigations, making it particularly difficult to uncover the truth in complex cases such as organized crime or economic offenses. They also point out that reducing the detention period could make it harder to prevent fugitives or the destruction of evidence by suspects in serious crimes, thus hindering the realization of judicial justice.

Representative Jang Dong-hyuk of the People Power Party stated in relation to the 'special prosecutor to restore political rights' demand that Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party, is merely fixated on a 'special prosecutor for cancellation of indictment,' and argued that special prosecutors should not devolve into tools for shielding oneself or seeking absolution. His remarks continue to link the discussion on adjusting prosecutorial investigative powers with other political frameworks. This demonstrates that bills related to prosecutorial investigative powers are becoming subjects of intense political conflict, extending beyond mere institutional improvements.

Among experts, there are opinions that while they sympathize with the bill's intent, thorough review of its specific details and potential side effects, along with social consensus, must precede its enactment.

Future Legislative Prospects and Market Impact

This amendment will proceed through the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee before a final vote in the plenary session. While the ruling party cannot pass the bill alone, negotiations and compromises with the opposition party are expected to be crucial, given the current public sentiment favoring prosecutorial reform. The timing of the bill's passage may be fluid, intertwined with political issues such as the post-June 3 local elections parliamentary investigation into the National Election Commission and the controversy over the 'special prosecutor to restore political rights.' Discussions in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee are expected to intensify within the next few weeks, and depending on the parliamentary situation, passage within the year is a possibility.

If the bill passes, the weakening of the prosecution's direct investigative capabilities could have subtle impacts across the entire legal market. Law firms and the legal profession may experience changes in the nature of case referrals and strategy development due to the reduction in the prosecution's investigative powers. In particular, law firms that previously utilized the prosecution's supplementary investigation rights and lawyers from investigative backgrounds may need to devise new strategies. Furthermore, there could be shifts in the demand for legal advisory and compliance services from corporations. However, this is analyzed as an indirect impact resulting from changes in the operation of the judicial system, rather than a direct economic ripple effect. Currently, the uncertainty surrounding whether the bill will pass is high, suggesting that gradual changes after its enactment, rather than immediate large-scale market impacts, should be observed. Notably, the reduction in suspect detention periods could bring about changes in the workload and case-handling methods of criminal defense attorneys.