PPP Counters Prosecution Abolition With Bill to Restore Supplementary Investigations

As discussion of abolishing the prosecution service gains momentum, the People Power Party (PPP) is preparing a counteroffensive by proposing legislation to restore supplementary investigative powers.

PPP floor leader Chung Chung-sik stated his position on the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office at a parliamentary audit strategy meeting held at the National Assembly on Monday morning. He characterized the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office as tantamount to the death of the criminal investigation system and announced that the party would begin by introducing a bill to restore supplementary investigations. Yonhap News reported that Chung, a former prosecutor, appeared visibly moved, even reddening at the eyes during his remarks.

Background to the Prosecution Abolition Controversy

The remarks came as prosecution reform discussions have moved into the legislative stage. The Rebuilding Korea Party and other opposition parties have made prosecution reform a core party platform, with their lawmakers known to have participated in legislation related to abolishing the Prosecutors' Office and adjusting investigative authority. Voices within the Democratic Party of Korea have also called for considering downsizing or abolishing the prosecution, intensifying the legislative battle between the ruling and opposition camps.

At the heart of the debate is the placement of investigative functions. Advocates of abolishing the prosecution argue that its monopoly on indictment and investigation is a structural cause of the abuse of power. Opponents, meanwhile, point out that separating investigation and prosecution would leave a gap in supplementary investigations needed to sustain indictments. Supplementary investigation refers to prosecutorial activity to secure additional evidence during trial proceedings after an indictment has been filed.

Key Provisions of the Supplementary Investigation Restoration Bill

The bill to restore supplementary investigations, which Floor Leader Chung has pledged to introduce, is seen as focusing on filling the gap that could emerge after the separation of investigation and prosecution. By legally restoring the prosecution's authority to conduct additional investigations needed to sustain indictments, the design seeks to preserve evidence-gathering functions at the trial stage even if investigative authority is transferred to the police and other agencies.

The bill is expected to apply broadly to cases pending before criminal trial courts. Amid growing public debate over the prosecution's investigative capacity and accountability—as seen when the second special counsel team led by Cho Chang-young sought disciplinary action against chief prosecutor Choi Jae-hoon over allegations that the investigation into the Deutsche Motors stock manipulation case was whitewashed—deep divisions persist over the very direction of the institutional design.

Views of Parties and Experts

The ruling Democratic Party and the Rebuilding Korea Party have championed prosecution reform as an electoral pledge. The Rebuilding Korea Party explicitly includes prosecution and political reform in its party platform, and its lawmakers are involved in related legislation. They maintain that abolishing the prosecution or fully transferring investigative authority is an essential measure for checking the power apparatus.

The PPP stands in the opposing camp. Floor Leader Chung emphasized that day that abolishing the prosecution could lead to the collapse of the entire criminal investigation system. The opposition argues that securing a legal basis for supplementary investigations must come first, from the standpoint of protecting crime victims and establishing trial-centered proceedings. Some in the legal community note that while separating investigation and prosecution is an international trend, transferring functions without a supplementary investigation framework could degrade the quality of trials. Reform advocates, meanwhile, counter that restoring supplementary investigations would effectively amount to preserving the prosecution's investigative authority.

Legislative Process and Outlook

With the parliamentary audit season now underway, the controversy is likely to spill into audit hearings. The supplementary investigation restoration bill announced by Floor Leader Chung must undergo review by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and bipartisan agreement will be needed for passage. Given the current seat structure in the National Assembly, passage in a plenary session would be difficult through opposition sponsorship alone.

In the short term, the ruling and opposition parties are expected to introduce their respective bills and engage in legislative competition through hearings and public forums. Finding common ground on whether to abolish the prosecution and how quickly to adjust investigative authority appears elusive. The standoff over sequencing—whether to first build the supplementary investigation framework or first confirm the downsizing of the prosecution—could consume months of the National Assembly's schedule.