Democrats Push to Pass Special Prosecutor Bill on Fabricated Indictments at Plenary Session on the 1st of Next Month

The Democratic Party is set to pass the special prosecutor bill on fabricated indictments at a plenary session as early as the 1st of next month.

Why Is the Special Prosecutor Bill Moving Again While Trials Are Underway

The Democratic Party of Korea is considering passing the so-called 'Special Prosecutor Act to Uncover the Truth Behind Fabricated Investigations and Indictments,' which aims to investigate suspicions of fabricated indictments in the prosecution's Ssangbangwool remittance-to-North-Korea case and the Daejang-dong case, at the National Assembly plenary session scheduled for early next month. As the bill is directly tied to the cases in which President Lee Jae-myung was indicted by the prosecution, it is an issue of intense confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties. At a press conference on the 18th, President Lee emphasized the need for a special prosecutor while remaining cautious on the issue of the power to withdraw indictments.

Behind this lies doubt over the political neutrality of prosecutorial investigations. The ruling camp has raised suspicions that the Daejang-dong and Ssangbangwool cases were fabricated by the prosecution to target a specific politician. The special prosecutor bill is premised on the idea that a special prosecutor should independently uncover the truth behind these suspicions. The ruling party's move to accelerate the bill's passage is seen as an attempt to resolve legal risks early.

Key Provisions and Points of Contention

The bill's core provision would have a special prosecutor investigate whether there was fabrication or improper interference in the investigation and indictment processes of the Ssangbangwool remittance-to-North-Korea case and the Daejang-dong case. The biggest point of contention is whether to grant the special prosecutor the power to withdraw indictments. Withdrawing an indictment means the prosecution retracts criminal charges already filed, which, if allowed, could affect ongoing trials themselves. President Lee's cautious remarks on this point at the press conference reflect real disagreements over the scope of the authority.

The People Power Party has announced it will counter the bill with a filibuster (unlimited debate). The opposition criticizes that a special prosecutor could be misused as a means to halt the trials against the president. The ruling party, in contrast, argues that trials stemming from fabricated indictments cannot be regarded as legitimate judicial proceedings. As Rousseau said that truth exists in only one mode, both sides claim to be on the side of that one truth.

The Legislative Landscape and Passage Outlook

Technically, the bill can pass, given the Democratic Party holds enough seats to put it to a plenary vote on its own. However, with a filibuster expected, the plenary schedule could be delayed or disrupt the National Assembly's overall calendar. If the opposition instead proposes deferring the special prosecutor's investigation until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling, it could serve as a bargaining chip.

If a dual-track scenario materializes with the president's trial and the special prosecutor's investigation proceeding simultaneously, the burden on the judiciary will also grow. In legal circles, the prevailing interpretation is that even if the special prosecutor is granted the power to withdraw indictments, the court's judgment must come first. Ultimately, constitutional disputes and procedural battles are expected to continue between the bill's passage and the actual start of the investigation.

Negotiations between the ruling and opposition parties are expected to make a final attempt ahead of the plenary session on the 1st of next month. Should they fail to reach agreement, the political costs of prolonged gridlock and a paralyzed National Assembly will follow. More than whether the bill passes, the real watershed of this issue is expected to be what rulings the courts make on the subsequent investigation, trial, and the boundaries of the special prosecutor's authority.