Prosecution's Investigative Authority Abolition Bill Passes Cabinet Meeting

Revision to Criminal Procedure Act Abolishing Prosecution's Investigative Authority Passes Cabinet Meeting, Fundamentally Reshaping Investigative Powers

On August 4, 2026, a bill to completely abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigative powers and direct investigative authority was approved at a Cabinet meeting chaired by President Lee Jae-myung. The passage of this revision is being hailed as the strongest institutional safeguard to date, codifying the separation of investigation and prosecution in South Korean judicial history. The government decided not to exercise its right of veto, respecting the National Assembly's legislative authority. President Lee Jae-myung stated at the meeting that the situation was not dire enough to question the National Assembly's legislative power, and the bill was passed as originally proposed. The bill, expected to be promulgated within a week, is scheduled to officially take effect on October 2nd.

The core of this bill is the complete removal of the prosecution's direct investigative functions and its supplementary investigative authority over police investigations. Previously, the prosecution conducted supplementary investigations under the guise of protecting human rights and ensuring the legality of investigations. Henceforth, their role will be limited to deciding whether to indict cases investigated by the police or, if necessary, requesting a reinvestigation by the police. The key principle behind the restructuring of investigative powers is the strict separation of prosecution and investigation, interpreted as a legislative decision to balance checks and balances among power institutions. After the law takes effect, the police will fully exercise investigative initiative, and the prosecution will focus on its core function of maintaining indictments.

Legislative Background and Political Disputes Surrounding Investigative Authority Separation

The intense political controversy surrounding the revision to the Criminal Procedure Act stems from long-standing societal criticism of the prosecution's unchecked power. The opposition party has argued that the prosecution has repeatedly engaged in targeted investigations and that correcting this is a matter of course. Seo Young-kyo, chairman of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, countered claims of unconstitutionality by emphasizing that this is a unique legislative matter for the National Assembly. He explained that defining the scope and subject of investigative authority is not an infringement on constitutional values but a process to strengthen judicial efficiency and democratic control.

Conversely, the ruling People Power Party and some legal circles have strongly opposed the bill, arguing that it could shake the foundations of the judicial system. Choi Eun-seok, the ruling party's floor leader's chief deputy spokesperson, criticized the president's decision to forgo a veto as the completion of self-protection and a decision that threatens the lives and safety of the people. Concerns have been raised that the abolition of the prosecution's supplementary investigative powers could weaken the ability to respond to complex economic and intellectual crimes. It is argued that if investigative authority is unilaterally transferred without proven investigative capabilities, the public will ultimately bear the brunt of the consequences.

President Lee Jae-myung stated at the Cabinet meeting that respecting the National Assembly's legislative power is the path to upholding the Constitution, explaining the necessity of the bill's passage. This is interpreted as an intention to avoid unnecessary confrontation between the executive and legislative branches and to support the completion of judicial reform.

Impact on Markets and Industries, and Concerns of Institutional Confusion

The revision to the Criminal Procedure Act is expected to have significant ripple effects beyond the legal community, impacting the business environment and the handling of general criminal cases. The primary concern is the potential for prolonged investigation periods and a lack of expertise. With direct investigations by the prosecution curtailed, large-scale economic cases, including licensing investigations and accounting fraud probes, are likely to remain at the police level. This could increase investigative uncertainty for businesses, forcing them to completely revise their legal response strategies. There is a dominant opinion in industrial circles that it is urgent to expand specialized investigative personnel within the police to prevent investigative gaps.

Furthermore, disputes over procedural flaws that may arise in courts are also considered a major variable. If defendants argue in court that investigations were conducted by individuals without investigative authority, legal battles over the admissibility of evidence could become fierce. According to KBS reports, the outcome of numerous future criminal trials could be reversed depending on how courts handle investigations conducted without investigative authority. This foreshadows significant confusion in practical settings, separate from the overarching goal of realizing judicial justice. The government faces the challenge of preparing specific investigative cooperation guidelines through enforcement decrees and subordinate legislation to prevent such confusion.

Future Legislative Procedures and the Direction of Judicial Reform

Following the passage of this revision, the government is expected to accelerate the preparation of follow-up measures. Budget allocations and organizational restructuring to enhance police investigative capabilities are anticipated before the October implementation. Notably, in addition to the Criminal Procedure Act revision, other public welfare bills, such as the enforcement decree for the restructuring of private universities and measures to expand youth unemployment benefits, were also discussed at this Cabinet meeting. This is analyzed as a move to elevate the banner of judicial reform while simultaneously pursuing policy benefits. Discussions on support for young people with voluntary resignations, attended by relevant ministers including Fair Trade Commission Chairman Joo Byung-ki and Minister Kim, demonstrate that this bill's passage is not an isolated issue but part of a comprehensive legislative drive.

Experts predict that the judicial system will solidify in a direction that checks the prosecution's convenience-driven prosecution and strengthens police accountability in investigations. However, it is expected to take considerable time for the system to become established. In the current climate where the introduction of special prosecutors and the dispatch of prosecutors remain contentious issues, some argue that abolition of investigative authority alone is insufficient to achieve complete reform. The National Assembly plans to continue voting on contentious bills, such as those shortening the fast-track legislative process, at the plenary session of the extraordinary session in August. The confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties over judicial reform is expected to reach another peak when the Constitutional Court rules on constitutionality or when practical field dissatisfaction becomes apparent.