Bill to Follow Up on Abolition of Prosecutors' Direct Investigation Powers Passes National Assembly
A follow-up bill to the Criminal Procedure Act amendment abolishing prosecutors' direct and supplementary investigation powers has passed the National Assembly's Gender Equality and Family Committee.
On the 15th, the Gender Equality and Family Committee held a plenary session and approved follow-up bills to the Criminal Procedure Act amendment—including revisions to the Juvenile Sex Protection Act and the Anti-Prostitution Act—led by the Democratic Party of Korea. People Power Party lawmakers walked out during the meeting and did not participate in the vote. The same day, the Administrative and Home Affairs Committee's plenary session also passed, at the ruling party's initiative, a revision to the Serious Crime Investigation Office Act granting the office supplementary investigative authority over crimes targeting vulnerable groups, such as sexual violence and child abuse.
Why Follow-Up Legislation Is Needed
These bills are part of completing the broader overhaul of prosecutorial investigative powers. With the Criminal Procedure Act amendment abolishing prosecutors' authority to directly investigate cases or take over police investigations for supplementation, new investigators must be designated for specific crime areas long handled by prosecutors. Sexual violence, child and juvenile sex protection, and prostitution-related crimes often involve victims who are minors or socially vulnerable, so any investigative gap could directly undermine victim protection.
The follow-up bills aim to fill such gaps. The Juvenile Sex Protection Act revision reallocates investigative authority over sex crimes against children and juveniles to fit the adjusted system, while the Anti-Prostitution Act revision aligns victim protection and investigative procedures with the new framework. The Serious Crime Investigation Office Act revision would have the office handle supplementary investigations of crimes against vulnerable groups.
Where the Parties Disagree
The Democratic Party argues that the principle of separating investigation and prosecution powers must be applied consistently to the follow-up legislation. Its logic is that since the abolition of prosecutors' direct investigation powers has set the direction, leaving related individual laws unamended would create conflicts within the legal system. Accordingly, the party is swiftly pushing the follow-up bills scattered across standing committees such as Gender Equality and Family, and Administrative and Home Affairs.
The People Power Party raises objections on both procedural and substantive grounds. Its lawmakers' walkout from the Gender Equality and Family Committee's plenary session that day reflected this resistance. The opposition argues that abolishing prosecutorial investigative powers could undermine the expertise and speed of investigations, and has particularly voiced concerns that responsibility across investigative agencies could become unclear in interviewing sex crime victims. The faster the follow-up bills move, the deeper this divide appears to grow.
Impact on the Investigative System and Victim Protection
If the bills pass the plenary session, the center of gravity in sex crime investigations will shift to the police and the Serious Crime Investigation Office. A dual structure would be clearly established in which police conduct primary investigations of crimes against vulnerable groups while the office performs supplementary investigations. With investigation and prosecution separated, the prosecution's monopoly over the power to indict will also weaken.
On the positive side, checks among investigative agencies could be strengthened and disputes over prosecutorial bias could diminish. On the other hand, concerns remain. Sex crime investigations hinge on expertise in securing victim statements and collecting evidence, and delays or disputes over responsibility could arise during the transition as investigative roles change hands. How much the bills strengthen victim protection procedures will also be a key yardstick in the implementation stage.
Outlook for the Legislative Schedule
The follow-up bills, having cleared their respective standing committees, still face review by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and a plenary vote. With the ruling and opposition parties agreeing to process 32 livelihood bills during this regular session—including the law to prevent patients being shuttled between emergency rooms—the timing of the plenary vote on the follow-up bills is expected to depend on the committee's audit schedule and the agenda of its bill review subcommittee.
Given that the Democratic Party holds enough seats to advance bills on its preferred schedule, the follow-up bills are likely to aim for passage within this regular session. However, if the People Power Party continues its procedural resistance and votes are repeatedly called, the burden on Assembly operations could grow. Whether this structural change in police-prosecutorial investigative powers translates into tangible improvements in investigation quality for victims and the public will be determined by how the laws are implemented after passage.
