Race to Amend 134 Bills Ahead of October Implementation Following Criminal Procedure Act Revision

Investigative Authority Turmoil… 134 Follow-up Bills Face Urgent Deadlines

With the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act—a set of amendments set to fundamentally upend South Korea’s investigative framework—having been confirmed after passing the plenary session of the National Assembly, 134 subsequent legislative revisions are racing against the clock to prevent legal conflicts. The most pressing issue is the implementation date slated for this October. According to the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee and related government ministries, assessments indicate that subordinate regulations and related laws connected to the revised Criminal Procedure Act must be finalized by as early as October 2 to prevent operational gaps and legal confusion among investigative agencies.

Previously, police and prosecutors jointly led investigations and exercised broad powers, including requesting warrants. However, with this revision completely abolishing the direct investigative authority of prosecutors, numerous special laws entangled in existing investigative conventions are at risk of losing their function. With only 51 days remaining, the National Assembly faces the task of defusing a "legislative bomb" that is difficult to manage within typical legislative timeframes.

Core Content of Bills and Social Ripple Effects

The 134 bills subject to follow-up legislation regulate investigative procedures across all sectors of society, including the economy, elections, and anti-corruption. The core task is to redesign procedures for specific crimes that the police cannot conclude investigations for, given the reduction in prosecutors' authority to conclude investigations and request warrants. As this revision applies, related laws that adjust the authority of independent investigative bodies such as the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and special counsel must also be overhauled.

There is particular concern regarding a lack of police expertise in investigating crimes related to the economy and capital markets. In the past, prosecutors could immediately intervene in legal judgments during large-scale stock price manipulation or corporate embezzlement cases led by the prosecution. However, critics argue that insufficient legal mechanisms in the future could lead to investigative delays or failures in evidence collection. This is expected to directly weaken regulations and sanctions against illegal activities in the capital market, potentially worsening the investment environment.

Sharp Political Debate Over Pros and Cons

The logic supporting and opposing the revision highlights a sharp political confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties. The opposition party maintains its stance that this is an essential institutional reform to prevent the monopoly of state power and rectify judicial justice. Their argument rests on correcting past abuses where prosecutors' excessive power led to arbitrary investigations.

Conversely, the ruling party strongly criticizes the changes, arguing that the human rights of crime victims will be disregarded and the judicial response capacity for serious crimes will rapidly weaken. They claim that the core of the Criminal Procedure Act revision goes beyond a simple power reshuffle and is directly linked to the daily safety of the public. Numerous civic groups involved in victim relief also express concerns about the bill's processing, anticipating that investigative delays will increase the suffering of victims.

Fate of Subordinate Regulations and Future Legislative Schedule

The biggest hurdle is how to finalize the 134 bills by the October 2 deadline. The National Assembly and government ministries are holding urgent meetings daily to review logical conflicts in the legislation. It is the common view of the legal community that at the current legislative speed, some bills will likely miss the implementation date, creating legal gray zones.

Particularly, narrowing differences between the subcommittee and relevant standing committees is proving difficult, especially regarding the requirements for initiating investigations and procedures for compulsory measures. Since organizational restructuring and budget securing for investigative agencies must proceed in parallel, the task for the regular session of the National Assembly in September is to prioritize accelerating the processing of these follow-up bills. Experts warn that if subordinate regulations are not properly arranged, this institutional reform will fail to achieve its original goal of establishing fair investigative practices and instead lead to the paralysis of the judicial system.

If the implementation date is pushed through without guaranteeing the stability of the judicial system, the overarching framework of police-prosecution investigative adjustment will result in another side effect: legal confusion. This will ultimately lead to the state abandoning its duty to protect its citizens' taxes, lives, and property.