Urgent Handling of 134 Bills Required With 51 Days Left Before Complete Abolition of Prosecutors' Investigation Authority

Complete Abolition of Prosecutors' Investigation Powers… 51 Days Remain to Fill Legislative Vacuum

The revision of the Criminal Procedure Act to completely abolish prosecutors' investigation powers has passed the National Assembly plenary session, marking a historic turning point for Korea's criminal justice system. However, only 51 days remain before the law takes effect in October. A staggering 134 follow-up bills are needed to bridge the legal gap between investigation and indictment. If relevant legal revisions are not completed by October 2, serious legal confusion and gaps are expected to occur throughout the entire investigation and trial processes.

With the collapse of the prosecutors' monopoly on investigations, which has been maintained for decades, the police have firmly established their status as the substantive investigative authority. While there are positive aspects, such as guaranteeing the independence of investigations, institutional friction is inevitable if the numerous subordinate laws drafted under the premise of prosecutor intervention under the existing legal system are not revised accordingly. This is the core reason why the Ministry of Justice, the National Police Agency, and the National Assembly Legislative and Judiciary Committee are hastening follow-up measures.

The Challenge of 134 Bills Shaking the Core Pillars of the Criminal Justice System

The 134 bills subject to revision constitute laws that form the core pillars of the Republic of Korea's criminal justice system. Specifically, they include the Special Prosecutor Act, which exercises authority in national security crisis situations such as rebellion, and laws dealing with the investigative authority of the National Election Commission. Additionally, detailed guidelines for criminal victim relief and litigation procedures, as well as investigation guidelines for public official crimes such as the abuse of authority, require a complete overhaul.

As independent police investigations become widespread, mechanisms to prevent investigative abuse and protect the human rights of suspects must be concretized within the legal framework. For instance, the manner in which inherent authority—previously supported by the prosecutorial organization—is exercised changes completely when a special prosecutor is appointed to conduct an investigation. In election lawsuits or objections, new provisions explicitly detailing cooperation between the National Election Commission and investigative agencies must also be designed. It is projected that significant administrative and social costs, amounting to trillions of won, will be required to eliminate potential legal conflicts regarding the transfer of police duties to each agency and to stabilize the system.

Diverging Political Assessments… Swift Legislation vs. Concerns Over Side Effects

Political circles show sharply divided views on the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act and the necessity of follow-up legislation. The ruling Democratic Party, along with opposition parties like the Rebuilding Korea Party, views this as a historic measure completing the puzzle of prosecutorial reform. They emphasize that breaking the prosecution's monopoly and separating investigation from indictment will realize fair judicial justice. In particular, civic groups welcome the adjustment of authority between the prosecution and police and are pushing for follow-up legislation to strengthen the powers of external independent control bodies to prevent abuse of police investigative authority.

Conversely, the conservative opposition, including the People Power Party, warns that the tight legislative schedule could lead to friction over legal interpretation. There are concerns that side effects, such as a decline in the arrest rate for serious crimes and the erosion of the political neutrality of investigations, may arise if authority is concentrated in the police, who lack extensive investigative capabilities. Critics point out that legal interpretation battles could intensify during election lawsuits or special counsel investigations driven by specific political agendas. Legal experts also diagnose that if the National Assembly fails to meet the October 2 deadline, legal instability will lead to violations of citizens' basic rights and immense social costs.

Race Against Time from Legislation Review to Plenary Vote

The National Assembly's legislative drive is expected to proceed at an unprecedented speed to meet the October 2 deadline for bill revisions. Standing committees, including the Legislative and Judiciary Committee and the Public Administration and Security Committee, must compress the review of the relevant 134 bills and subcommittee deliberations at an unprecedented pace. At the government level, administrative procedures are also being accelerated to revise subordinate regulations such as ordinances and instructions.

The practical coordination among party policy committees and lawmakers belonging to the bill review subcommittees is crucial. Negotiating parties within the National Assembly, such as the Rebuilding Korea Party, intend to prioritize the processing of criminal justice follow-up bills while maintaining the momentum for other controversial social issues like labor law reform and education bills. If an agreement between the ruling and opposition parties is not reached at the upcoming plenary session and the processing of bills is delayed, there is a high probability that direct judicial friction—such as the release of suspects or trial delays due to conflicts over authoritative interpretation—will become a reality after implementation in October. Ultimately, organic cooperation among relevant ministries and bipartisan cooperation in the National Assembly are evaluated as the only path to the completion of this sweeping criminal justice reform.