Judiciary Committee Initiates Review of NEC Special Counsel Bill and Declares Processing of Criminal Procedure Act

Full-Scale Launch of NEC Special Counsel Bill Review and Criminal Procedure Act Processing

The National Assembly Judiciary Committee officially began deliberating on the bill for a special counsel into the National Election Commission (NEC) on the 27th, regarding the ballot paper shortage during the June 3 local elections. Meanwhile, Han Byeong-do, the acting leader and floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, declared during the party's Supreme Council meeting that he would process the revision to the Criminal Procedure Act—which completely abolishes the prosecution's supplementary investigation authority—during this week's plenary session. As two key bills led by the ruling party proceed simultaneously through the legislative process, tensions are escalating within both political and legal circles. Concerns are increasingly being voiced not only by the opposition but also by civic groups and legal experts regarding the Assembly's rush to legislate.

Key Contents of the NEC Special Counsel Bill and Criminal Procedure Act Revision

The NEC Special Counsel Bill was introduced to uncover the exact causes and identify those responsible for the large-scale shortage of voting papers during the local elections held on June 3. If passed, an external special counsel with no direct interest in the case will be appointed to investigate allegations of dereliction of duty and abuse of authority by NEC officials and related public servants. The Judiciary Committee convened a subcommittee meeting on this day to coordinate the detailed review schedule and decided to proceed with the review led by the ruling party, despite opposition protests.

The revision to the Criminal Procedure Act essentially aims to significantly restrict the powers of investigative agencies. The core of the revision is the complete removal of the prosecution's supplementary investigation authority, which currently allows prosecutors to re-investigate insufficient aspects of cases transferred by the police. Floor Leader Han Byeong-do stated in a press conference that, alongside the Criminal Procedure Act revision, he would complete the arrangements for so-called "filibuster bills" and fast-track bills during this week's plenary session. These bills are designed to guarantee the police's independent investigative authority and check the prosecution's monopoly on indictment.

Debate Over Reform of Investigative Authority

The ruling party emphasizes the need to disperse the prosecution's excessive powers to ensure the independence of investigation and indictment. Critics argue that the prosecution's power to overturn or expand upon police investigations creates a power imbalance between agencies. In particular, they claim that abolishing supplementary investigation authority is urgent to prevent the prosecution organization from being abused by specific political forces. At the same time, the ruling party maintains that the introduction of a special counsel is inevitable to uncover the truth, as the NEC's self-inquiry into the ballot shortage has revealed its limitations.

Conversely, the opposition is reacting strongly, arguing that abolishing the authority would remove the last safety net for controlling cases where police investigations are concluded inadequately. The Supreme Prosecutors' Office and legal figures from prosecutorial backgrounds also warn that removing supplementary investigation authority could make punishing suspects in serious crimes difficult. Criticism has been raised that amidst the extreme conflict within the legal community over investigative authority, the entire national criminal justice system could be shaken. Furthermore, objections have been raised regarding the NEC Special Counsel Bill, with concerns that it could undermine the neutrality of election management and transform into a tool for political suppression of specific agencies.

Social Impact and Future Outlook of Legislative Conflict

The simultaneous handling of these two bills presages significant ramifications for public perception regarding prosecutorial reform and the electoral system. As seen recently when the Kwon Chang-yong second special counsel team executed additional search warrants on the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office during the investigation into the Deutsche Motors stock manipulation case, suspicions of external pressure on law enforcement agencies served as a key factor in the decline of public trust. The National Assembly's strong push for an independent special counsel and the separation of investigative powers is aimed at resolving this distrust. However, if the legal revisions are consumed as tools for political retaliation or agency capture, public distrust in judicial justice will likely deepen.

With the plenary session approaching this week, the ruling and opposition parties have entered the final stage of negotiations regarding the processing of the Criminal Procedure Act revision. If the Judiciary Committee's review proceeds as scheduled, both bills could be submitted to the plenary committee as early as the 30th. The opposition is considering extreme countermeasures such as occupying the conference chamber or staging a filibuster, making fierce physical clashes during the bill passage process seem inevitable. Even if legislation is completed as the ruling party desires, subsequent challenges and potential rulings of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court are expected, meaning it will take considerable time for the new system to fully settle.

Ultimately, legislation restructuring the authority of investigative agencies goes beyond amending legal provisions; it is a task of setting the structure of state power. Rather than the timing of the bills' passage, how the fundamental objectives of mutual checks and balances between the prosecution and police, as well as the protection of suspects' human rights, are harmonized will serve as the key factor deciding the future of the rule of law.