The disciplinary complaint filed against Yoon by Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae’s office alleges six instances of professional misconduct by Yoon. Perhaps the trickiest charge among them is that he ordered improper investigations of sitting judges, in light of Yoon’s strategy of attempting to obtain early judicial intervention. Justice Minister Chu told reporters that the investigation of judges at Yoon’s direction was clearly unlawful. Other charges involve alleged obstruction of investigations or proceedings in which he had a conflict of interest (these potentially could involve himself, his family members or his subordinates); leaking information to the press (press-prosecution collusion); unethical contact with parties related to ongoing investigations or litigation (also involving the press), and politicizing the prosecution function (targeting high profile political figures on the left for prosecution and declining to prosecute figures from the right). Pending the investigation Yoon has been suspended from his duties. Yoon is also seeking an injunction to stop the disciplinary proceedings, and potentially his suspension, as well, presumably while the Constitutional Court addresses the substance of legal issues raised in his petition. Experts differ in their expectation of what the Constitutional Court might do.
Today there is an unrelated general meeting of representative judges scheduled and the question is whether or not the gathered jurists would add the issue of Yoon’s alleged surveillance of judges to their agenda. There is clearly not a formal procedure or enough time for the judges meeting to adequately consider the issues raised by Yoon’s claims of constitutional issues or any of the other procedural issues or specific charges against him. YTN reported that if ten jurists attending the professional gathering of judges requested it be placed on the agenda it could be added. Yet, such consideration would render little more than the judges opinions or bias in relation to the issues or matters raised, unless the agenda item or items were narrowly construed. A fear is that such consideration might influence the disciplinary hearing on December 10. Conceivably the Supreme Court itself might be influenced by any relevant pronouncements by the judicial community that emerge from the meeting.
Critics on the left note the hypocritical clamor from the established media regarding Yoon’s alleged independence as a guarantor of constitutionalism is to be expected. The three largest media cartels Chosun Ilbo, Joongang Ilbo, and Donga media are implicated in issues raised by instances of Yoon’s alleged misconduct. Observers note the prospect of the Constitutional Court allowing a preliminary injunction to preclude the disciplinary hearing from taking place would establish a precedent for prospective judicial interference in disciplinary procedures involving government attorneys. Justice Minister Chu stated there is nothing improper about the disciplinary process. Finally, pundits observe the legal challenge in the Constitutional Court to the disciplinary hearing process by Yoon is a stalling tactic by a desperate man, who although accustomed to stalling litigation he doesn’t like until it dies from change of administration or the statute of limitations, is running out of options. Once his removal from office is obtained, pending collateral investigation and litigation against Yoon’s family, subordinates, and economic interests he has been protecting up till now could potentially proceed unimpeded. President Moon Jae-in stated he will follow the determination of the disciplinary hearing with respect to Yoon’s dismissal.
Note: the original publication of this post incorrectly identified the Supreme Court as the venue for the substantive appeal of the disciplinary hearing determination against Yoon Seok-yeol. The appropriate jurisdiction was the Constitutional Court. 6.28.21
No comments:
Post a Comment