Criminal Procedure Code Revision Passes National Assembly, Completing 78-Year Separation of Investigation and Prosecution

Completion of 78-Year Separation of Investigation and Prosecution and Remaining Tasks

The revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly on the 31st, is triggering a fundamental shift in South Korea's criminal justice system. This bill, which completely abolishes the prosecution's investigative authority and supplementary investigation authority, is evaluated as the finishing line in the sprint for prosecutorial reform pursued approximately 1 year and 2 months after the inauguration of the Lee Jae-myung administration. The prosecution's monopoly, having held both indictment and investigation powers in one hand for 78 years since the government's establishment in 1948, thus fades into history. The principle of separating investigation and prosecution—where police handle investigation and prosecutors handle indictment—has been legally established. However, the bill's passage simultaneously triggered fierce conflict within the political sphere. The opposition party is strongly raising allegations of unconstitutionality and calling for a constitutional appeal and the exercise of the veto request, creating a situation where a green light has been given for future legislative procedures and constitutional judgment.

Core Content of the Bill and the Constitutional Controversy

The most core element of the revised Criminal Procedure Act is the complete removal of the prosecutor's direct investigative authority and supplementary investigation authority (where prosecutors request warrants based on police applications). The police secure the right to independently request warrants, while prosecutors retain only the authority to decide whether to indict. Consequently, the authority of prosecutors has been drastically reduced, and the evidence collection rights of judicial police officers have become legally completely independent. This change is interpreted as a legislative intent to minimize the prosecution's influence within the judicial system, thereby promoting the convenience and fairness of investigations.

However, the debate over pros and cons surrounding this bill reached its peak. Seo Young-kyo, chairman of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the Democratic Party of Korea, dismissed the claims of unconstitutionality on the 3rd as groundless. Han Byung-do, the Democratic Party's floor leader, also criticized the opposition party's attitude of mentioning impeachment and threatening a veto regarding the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act. At the same time, it is reported that President Lee Jae-myung, returning from a tour of South America on the 3rd, indicated his intention not to exercise his veto request right (right to reconsider) on the revision. This is interpreted as his will to promulgate the bill within 15 days of its passage at the plenary session. In contrast, the People Power Party held an on-site Supreme Council meeting in front of the presidential office to officially call for the exercise of the veto request. The People Power Party plans to file a constitutional appeal immediately upon promulgation, citing strong potential for unconstitutionality.

Opposition Party's Backlash and Spreading Market Anxiety

Concerns are also being raised regarding potential investigative voids and side effects that could result from the abolition of investigative authority. As the prosecutor's command is excluded from criminal investigation scenes, friction between the police and the prosecution over the direction of investigations may intensify. Furthermore, there are concerns that the linkage between evidence collection and the maintenance of public prosecution may weaken in large-scale or complex economic crimes. To block these side effects, the Democratic Party's Legislation and Judiciary Committee promised the swift handling of a mandatory case transfer bill for the seven major serious crimes, such as murder and robbery, which would force cases to be transferred to the prosecution without exception. The Democratic Party plans to conclude follow-up legislation by next month at the latest. In response, the People Power Party argues that completely overhauling criminal procedures before the Constitutional Court's decision is dangerous. Critics point out that such a drastic change in the system could cause role confusion among investigative agencies and ultimately have a negative impact on protecting the rights of crime victims.

Legislative Follow-up Measures and the Outlook for the Criminal Justice System

If President Lee Jae-myung does not exercise his veto and promulgates the revision immediately, the new investigation and prosecution system is expected to be officially operational as early as soon. This is because the bill resolution procedure has already progressed through a State Council meeting. In alignment with the timing of the government's promulgation, the National Police Agency is accelerating administrative preparations, such as establishing dedicated departments for exercising warrant request authority and preparing practical manuals. Conversely, the constitutional appeal trial process threatened by the opposition party will play a decisive role in securing constitutional stability through precedents. Whether the independence of investigative authority infringes upon the prosecution's powers guaranteed by the Constitution will be finally confirmed through future Supreme Court precedents.

Ultimately, the outcome of the handling of some 190 follow-up legislative measures and the bill for mandatory transfer of the seven major crimes will determine whether the criminal justice system settles stably. While the grand principle of reducing the authority of prosecutors and strengthening the responsibility of the police has been established, the detailed legal groundwork to support it remains an unfinished task. Without inter-party agreement and the formation of a national consensus, it is expected that the new investigative system will face difficulties in achieving its original goals of actual crime suppression and the realization of fair justice.