PPP counters that abolishing the prosecution would mean the death of the criminal investigation system
As warnings emerge that abolishing the prosecution could collapse the entire criminal investigation system, a bill to restore supplementary investigations is being drafted.
People Power Party floor leader Jung Jeong-sik said at a National Assembly audit strategy meeting on the morning of the 2nd that, regarding discussions on abolishing the Prosecutors' Office, "We will first introduce and push forward a bill to restore supplementary investigations." He described the abolition of the prosecution as "the death of the criminal investigation system," arguing that safeguards legislation must precede the transfer of investigative and prosecutorial functions. Media outlets reported that Jung, a former prosecutor, became visibly emotional at one point during his remarks.
Background: Debate over abolishing the Prosecutors' Office and fears of an investigative vacuum
His remarks came as discussions on restructuring the investigation and prosecution framework, including the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office, have emerged as a live policy issue. As reforms have substantially curtailed the prosecution's investigative powers, critics have consistently pointed out that once the prosecution's direct investigative role is reduced, other agencies such as the police may not be able to fully absorb it.
The key issue is supplementary investigation. This refers to a system under which prosecutors conduct additional, follow-up investigations when police investigations are found to be lacking or insufficient. Past reallocation of investigative powers sharply narrowed the prosecution's scope for direct investigation, limiting prosecutors' ability to shore up cases in the later stages of an investigation. Concerns have been raised within and beyond the criminal law community that this could degrade the quality of indictments. Jung's remarks are seen as an attempt to fill this structural gap through legislation.
Key contents: Legislation to restore investigative functions first
The legislative approach being pursued is to restore prosecutors' supplementary investigative powers by law before debating whether to abolish the prosecution altogether. The logic is that as long as the prosecution continues to exist as the body that decides on and maintains indictments, its decisions risk becoming a formality without the investigative capacity to verify the substance of a case. However, no specific bill text has yet been released; the timing of introduction and its details are expected to be finalized later.
The bill is expected to apply to police-investigated cases where evidence is insufficient or where the issues are so complex that further investigation is needed. Criminal law researchers have long pointed out that the absence of prosecutorial supplementary investigation could become a substantive weakness in cases requiring sophisticated investigative techniques, such as major financial crimes or corruption cases involving politicians.
Pros and cons: Completing the reform or preserving system stability
Positions across the political aisle are sharply divided. The People Power Party treats restoring supplementary investigations as its top priority, arguing that abolishing the prosecution could dismantle the investigation system. Jung's "death of the criminal investigation system" remark reflects the party's official position.
The reform camp, by contrast, stresses that the debate over curtailing prosecutorial powers and abolishing the prosecution stems from concerns accumulated since the reallocation of investigative authority between police and prosecutors. The reform effort began, they argue, with criticism that the structure allowing prosecutors to hold both investigative and prosecutorial powers produced bias in investigating power abuse cases. Some opposition parties, including the Cho Kuk Innovation Party, have made prosecution reform a core policy plank, and their lawmakers have been active in legislation aimed at separating investigation from prosecution. Restoring supplementary investigations, they contend, could roll back these reforms.
Outlook: Legislative schedule and prospects for enactment
In the short term, the supplementary investigation restoration bill is unlikely to advance smoothly given the stark differences between the ruling and opposition parties. Given the opposition's legislative majority, the bill would need bipartisan agreement or clear public support to pass committee review in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee.
In the longer term, the pace of the debate over abolishing the prosecution is expected to determine the bill's fate. If concerns about an investigative vacuum grow as abolition plans take concrete legislative form, calls for restoring supplementary investigations could gain momentum. Conversely, if the restructuring debate leads to alternatives such as strengthening police investigative capacity and establishing a specialized prosecution body, the very need for restoration legislation could fade. Ultimately, this debate is expected to become a central agenda item in future National Assembly criminal law deliberations within the broader framework of restructuring investigation and prosecution.
