Jumin Park, chaired by the 1st subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee▶ Click here for a larger view
On the 18th, the National Assembly Legislative and Judiciary Committee began a full-scale discussion on the so-called ‘Complete inspection’ bill, which is promoted by the Democratic Party of Korea.
The Democratic Party started a speed fight for legislation, emphasizing the need for separate investigation and prosecution, but as the people strongly opposed it, the arguments of both sides ran parallel.
The ruling and opposition parties continued to discuss until following midnight to change the order, but they did not reach a conclusion that day and decided to hold a second lieutenant meeting on the followingnoon of the 19th to continue the review.
The bill was introduced at 9:40 pm, two hours and 40 minutes following the so-called meeting. After a meeting, the screening began in earnest at 10:30 pm and continued until 0:40 am the next day.
As the Democratic Party does not bend its policy of ‘handling the provisional assembly in April’, tensions are expected to gradually increase in the so-called discussion process.
The National Assembly Judiciary Committee held the first subcommittee for bill review that night and discussed and proposed amendments to the Prosecutor’s Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act proposed by the Democratic Party as a party argument on the 15th.
These bills have not yet been discussed through alternative discussions at the plenary session of the Judiciary Committee prior to the so-called referral.
However, Park Ju-min, chairman of the first subcommittee of the bill review, said that these bills were related to other amendments to the Prosecutor’s Office Act and the Criminal Act, which had previously been referred to the subcommittee.
In response, the People’s Power protested once morest the National Assembly Act, which stipulates that existing bills were only referred but never reviewed, and that ‘agenda related to the item under review’ can be directly referred.
In the process of arguing over this, subcommittee Park Jumin first proposed other bills to the second lieutenant, and then passed the Democratic Party argument directly at a time lag.
Considering that other bills were proposed and discussed first as a ‘proposal review’ process, direct loading was used as a kind of detour.
In response, Rep. Jeon Joo-hye, a member of the People’s Power, protested, saying, “I can’t agree with the decision of the direct committee,” saying, “Is there anything that the Judiciary Chairperson is doing unilaterally just because the Democratic Party is the Democratic Party?”
The subcommittee on the bill was convened at 7 pm on that day, but in the process of arguing over these procedural issues, the agenda was not introduced until following 9:40 pm.
In addition, the ruling and opposition parties clashed sharply over whether the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office should attend the second lieutenant to express opinions on the bill and whether to open the meeting to reporters. Ultimately, the meeting was held publicly.
In the legislative examination, which began in earnest at 10:30 pm following a brief pause following the introduction, the positions of the opposition parties were strongly divided.
Representative Yoo Sang-beom, from People’s Power, said, “It is appropriate to review the bill following in-depth discussions such as debates and conferences on virtually all amendments that change the fundamentals of the Criminal Act. It is polite to the people to discuss it.”
Rep. Park Hyung-soo of the same party said, “Laws that can restrict and punish basic rights should not depend on how the regime changes. It has lost its validity.”
Rep. Jeon Joo-hye said, “Why do we have to do such a hasty review?” He argued, “We need to listen to the people’s various voices and seriously review them, and social consensus is needed.”
On the other hand, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min listed “The case of former Vice Minister of Justice Kim Hak-eui, the case of acquittal of Justice Minister candidate Han Dong-hoon without opening his cell phone, the acquittal of alcohol, the allegation of accusation,” and then “What the hell more incidents have to happen before the national issue?” It is difficult to understand whether consensus is formed.”
Rep. Lee Su-jin (Dongjak-eul, Seoul) said, “In order to guarantee the basic rights of the people as much as possible, the investigation and prosecution should be separated. It’s like saying that the police should not keep doing good investigations.”
Rep. Choi Ki-sang said, “It is a violation of the Constitution, but now we are in a state of violation of the Constitution, which limits the basic rights of the people at all times because the prosecution has the power to investigate, request a warrant, and prosecute. If a police officer applies for a search and seizure, the prosecution can fully fulfill its duties in the public interest stipulated in the Constitution if the prosecution does a thorough inspection at that time,” he said.
[연합뉴스]
s ⓒ Yonhap News. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited
