Democratic Party Proposes Criminal Procedure Act Revision, Pushes for Complete Abolition of Prosecutorial Supplementary Investigation Authority

Background to the Democratic Party's Push for Complete Abolition of Supplementary Investigation Authority

The Democratic Party took a decisive step toward curtailing prosecutorial powers on the 14th by introducing a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act. Under current law, prosecutors possess the authority to conduct supplementary investigations to address deficiencies in cases transferred by the police. The opposition party leader strongly criticized the ruling party's aggressive legislative tactics during a plenary session at the National Assembly. Observers both inside and outside political circles argue that this measure effectively dismantles the prosecution's monopoly on investigations under the guise of reform. Opposition lawmakers expressed deep regret over the attempt to fast-track specific bills while negotiations for the formation of the National Assembly standing committees remain stalled.

The political standoff stems from structural contradictions surrounding investigation authority. According to a bill referred to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, the proposal seeks to fundamentally prohibit prosecutors from gathering additional evidence after the police have concluded their initial investigation. A legal expert argued that, much like the current electoral system, the roles of the police and prosecution must be clearly separated to achieve the goal of protecting citizens' basic rights.

Core Conflict: Principled Abolition vs. Exceptional Allowance

The central controversy of the revision lies in the fundamental question of whether completely eliminating this authority truly benefits the public. Rep. Hong Ki-won of the Democratic Party introduced a compromise in the revision bill he sponsored, proposing limited allowance for prosecutorial supplementary investigations in exceptional cases, such as crimes against the socially vulnerable or livelihood-related cases. Rep. Hong stated that protecting the liberty and rights of the people is the paramount value of the criminal justice system, arguing that minimal exceptional mechanisms are necessary even under the principle of complete abolition.

Conversely, the mainstream of the Democratic Party, centered around the intra-party task force, maintains a resolute stance that no exceptions should be made. This position stems from concerns that if supplementary investigations are abused, they could combine with the prosecution's exclusive indictment power to absolutize prosecutorial authority. Critics argue the authority has been used in the past as a tool to suppress political rivals under various administrations. Legal experts predict a fierce battle in the latter half of the National Assembly session as both sides remain entrenched in their positions. In particular, the urgent task of finding alternatives that represent the interests of victims has emerged.

Whether the legislative process succeeds will depend on finding a legal balance between victim relief and human rights protection. The issue of equity must never be overlooked.

Social Ripple Effects and Concerns over Rash Legislation

A fierce tug-of-war is also underway regarding the speed of the bill's processing. According to an exclusive report by a media outlet, it was confirmed that a staggering 330 bills passed through standing committees without observing the mandatory deliberation period set by the National Assembly Act during the first half of the 22nd National Assembly. There has been an increase in instances where bills are passed without administrative consent immediately after introduction, lacking sufficient review. The push to abolish supplementary investigation authority struggles to avoid criticism that it is being forced through in this hasty manner. Experts warn that passing the bill within a few months without careful review could lead to widespread confusion throughout the judicial system.

Furthermore, social trust in the judiciary has been sharply declining following the recent request for an arrest warrant for former Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung by the second special counsel team on charges of sedition. Civic group officials emphasize that institutional mechanisms to prevent the politicization of the justice system must be put in place first. Simultaneously, as police investigative powers expand, appropriate control measures are essential. Without these, the two investigative agencies may simply shift responsibility to one another, leaving the public to suffer the consequences.

Future Legislative Procedures and Outlook

As negotiations to normalize the National Assembly stall, attention is focused on the future trajectory of the bill to abolish supplementary investigation authority. Currently, the ruling and opposition parties remain at odds over the special counsel recommendation and the allocation of standing committee seats, having failed even to complete the formation of the Assembly. A prolonged political standoff could result in a significant gap in governance. Consequently, the timeline for a plenary vote on the abolition bill has become uncertain amidst this political gridlock. Should the ruling party unilaterally convene standing committees to force the bill's passage, the opposition party has vowed to engage in physical confrontation to block it.

While the situation is complicated, the restructuring of investigation authority is a critical matter that strikes at the root of the national judicial system. For the bill to pass, it must achieve the dual objectives of protecting victims' human rights and clarifying the separation of investigative roles between the prosecution and police. The legislative process within the Legislation and Judiciary Committee should mandate the collection of expert testimony and the holding of public hearings. A prudent and responsible legislative process is the only way to properly establish judicial justice.