Subcommittee Passes Criminal Procedure Act Bill Abolishing Prosecutors' Complementary Investigation Authority

Discussions on Follow-up Measures to Investigative Authority Reform Begin in Earnest

A bill to amend the Criminal Procedure Act, which seeks to abolish the system allowing prosecutors to take over and reinvestigate cases after police inquiries are complete, has passed the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. This follows the strengthening of the police's independent investigative powers. During a meeting on the 28th, the Subcommittee on Bill Examination No. 1 passed the agenda, led by the ruling bloc. The core of this amendment is the complete removal of the prosecutors' so-called "complementary investigation authority." This authority refers to the power of prosecutors to conduct additional inquiries into cases that the police have finished investigating. There had been persistent criticism that this authority served as a means for the prosecution to maintain its influence, even as police investigative powers were significantly expanded under the opposition party's leadership. The amendment aims to correct this imbalance and clearly delineate the responsibilities of the prosecution and the police.

National Assembly Act Revision and Adjusting Bill Processing Speed

On the same day, a subcommittee under the National Assembly's Steering Committee also passed a revision to the National Assembly Act, led by the ruling party, which shortens the review period for "fast-track" items. Under current regulations, once a bill is designated as fast-track, it can take up to 330 days from review to final processing. The revision proposes significantly reducing this period to around 100 days to expedite the final vote at the plenary session. The ruling party argues that shortening the processing period is necessary to quickly pass key reform bills stalled by vested interests. Conversely, the opposition party counters that insufficient review time could lead to hasty legislation. Thus, negotiations surrounding the fast-track system, intertwined with the investigative authority reform bill, foreshadow intense political wrangling.

Ripple Effects on the Overall Judicial System

The abolition of complementary investigation authority is expected to significantly alter the substantive investigative command structure. As the police lead the entire process from the start to the end of a case, an environment of accountable investigation is anticipated. In the past, there were criticisms of "duplication of investigation" when prosecutors re-examined cases handed over by the police. Eliminating unnecessary procedures is expected to greatly enhance investigative efficiency. Civil groups and some in the legal community have welcomed the measure as a democratic step breaking the prosecution's monopoly on power. However, prosecution-related groups have expressed strong concerns, arguing that the elimination of complementary investigation authority removes the last safety net against police abuse of investigation. They warn that weakening the prosecutors' judicial control function could lead to biased investigations in specific cases. This debate between supporters and critics is expected to intensify as the plenary vote approaches.

Future Legislative Schedule and Political Calendar

With the passage of both amendments through the subcommittee, the political focus now shifts to the full session of the Judiciary Committee and the plenary session. The ruling bloc intends to process these bills within the upcoming regular National Assembly session, utilizing forced votes if necessary. The opposition party, including the Rebuilding Korea Party, has stated its stance to block what they call "bad laws" that threaten people's livelihoods through National Assembly innovation. Consequently, physical clashes between the ruling and opposition parties or high-intensity measures such as filibusters appear inevitable during the upcoming full committee meetings. This legislative process, which completes the final puzzle of the adjustment of investigative powers between the police and prosecution, will serve as a crucial watershed moment determining the future direction of the Korean judicial system. The final outcome depends on the power struggle within the political circle and the formation of social consensus.