Ruling and Opposition Parties Clash over Abolition of Prosecutorial Supplementary Investigation Authority

Ruling and Opposition Parties in Head-on Collision over Abolishing Prosecutors’ Supplementary Investigation Rights

On the 13th, the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, led by the Democratic Party of Korea, held a meeting of the first subcommittee for bill review to discuss a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act that would completely abolish the prosecution’s supplementary investigation authority. The proposal aims to eliminate the power of prosecutors to conduct additional investigations after the police have completed an inquiry. In response, the People Power Party struck back on the same day by deciding to introduce an alternative revision that maintains the supplementary investigation rights as the official party stance.

The prosecution’s supplementary investigation authority is a system that allows prosecutors to gather additional evidence or re-interview suspects after the police investigation has concluded. Critics argue that if this power is abused, it undermines the independence of police investigations and raises concerns about unlimited intervention by prosecutors. Conversely, there are arguments that abolishing the system could lead to a failure to indict due to insufficient investigations or weaken the ability to investigate serious crimes. Since the adjustment of investigative powers, legal battles over the boundary of authority between the police and prosecution have continued in the National Assembly.

Intense Legislative Competition with Alternatives for Exceptional Permission

On the 14th, Democratic Party lawmaker Hong Gi-won introduced a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act that would allow prosecutors’ supplementary investigation authority only in exceptional cases. This alternative narrows the scope of the party’s original stance on complete abolition. The intent is to permit prosecutory investigations only in cases where there is a high risk of concealing a crime or where securing evidence through police investigation is markedly difficult. However, some within the Legislation and Judiciary Committee have raised cautious arguments, noting that vague standards make it difficult to completely block the possibility of arbitrary intervention by prosecutors.

The People Power Party strongly criticizes the complete abolition of supplementary investigation rights, arguing it would create a blind spot in punishing serious crimes. Their logic is that if prosecutors cannot directly supplement evidence before indictment, a wave of not-guilty verdicts could ensue during the trial stage. On the other hand, the Democratic Party counters that maintaining the rights weakens the police’s primary investigation authority and leads to an excessive concentration of power in the prosecution. They argue that the prosecution’s practice of controlling police investigations must be legally blocked.

Legislative Landscape Complicated by Political Schedule

The discussion on revising the Criminal Procedure Act is acting as a variable in national governance, intertwined with other major political issues. On the 13th, People Power Party Floor Leader Jeon Jin-gyoo held a meeting with senior lawmakers to discuss response strategies for the second-half negotiations on the National Assembly configuration. As the opposition’s recommendation for the special counsel on the National Election Commission becomes an obstacle, signs suggest the People Power Party’s boycott of the Assembly could prolong. Amidst this political standoff, the schedule for processing the supplementary investigation bill has become uncertain.

In local councils, movements demanding reform of the election management system are also gaining strength. Gyeongnam Provincial Council member Kim Sun-taek introduced a resolution condemning the poor management of the June 3 local elections and urging a total overhaul of the election management system. As distrust in the election management system spreads, the ruling and opposition parties show sharp differences over the reform of the National Election Commission and the push for a special counsel. The structure has emerged where reform of investigative agencies and revision of the election system have simultaneously risen as legislative issues.

Expected to be Referred to Plenary Session after Subcommittee Deliberation

The bill to abolish supplementary investigation rights is expected to undergo detailed coordination in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s first subcommittee before being forwarded to the full committee meeting. Finding a compromise between the complete abolition proposal, the exceptional permission proposal, and the People Power Party’s proposal to maintain the status quo is essential. However, as the ruling and opposition parties remain sharply divided, there is a high possibility that the bill’s processing will be delayed even during the regular session of the National Assembly in September.

The key is to reach an agreement that institutionally guarantees the independence of police investigations while not weakening the ability to investigate serious crimes. Going forward, both parties are expected to continue discussions through subcommittees and public hearings, gathering opinions from experts across various fields. There is a pressing need to craft a compromise that simultaneously satisfies the two tasks of defining the direction of prosecutorial reform and protecting the rights of crime victims.