​Choi Sang-mok, Acting "Agent of Chaos" must immediately appoint Ma Eun-hyeok to safeguard the people's fundamental rights

Mr. Choi Sang-mok, tell us. Are you the Constitutional Court’s temporary steward or the nation’s self-appointed "Agent of Chaos"? 

The Constitutional Court is not merely a platform for deliberating on the impeachment of the so-called "chief conspirator of insurrection," Yoon Suk-yeol. It is the final safeguard for citizens whose fundamental rights are under siege. Even the Speaker of the National Assembly has acknowledged the delay in appointing the 9th constitutional justice. A delay that lies squarely on your shoulders. What excuse remains for your chronic foot-dragging? 

Over the past five years, the Constitutional Court has dealt with an overwhelming caseload of 13,759 cases: 10,539 constitutional complaints for rights relief, 3,042 constitutional complaints for constitutional review, 144 adjudications on the constitutionality of statutes, 6 impeachment trials, and 28 competence disputes. 

Last year alone, from January to November, the numbers remain staggering: 18 adjudications on the constitutionality of statutes, 1 impeachment trial, competence disputes, 1,609 constitutional complaints for rights relief, and 637 constitutional complaints for constitutional review. 

With over 2,000 right-relief complaints filed annually, a fully staffed 9-justice bench is not just preferable. It is an absolute necessity to ensure timely adjudication. Surely, Mr. Acting Official, you are aware of this. 

And yet, here you are, having appointed only 2 out of 3 nominees for the Constitutional Court, stubbornly clinging to this incomplete configuration. Should we applaud your audacity? Are you secretly patting yourself on the back for devising this masterstroke of obstructionism to shield Yoon Suk-yeol? 

Perhaps you’ve convinced yourself that your so-called balanced appointments represent some sort of political finesse. But let’s be clear. This is nothing more than cowardly tightrope walking, a disingenuous maneuver to exploit the Court as a political weapon. 

Consider this. Between 2020 and 2024, the average time to process a constitutional complaint was 694.8 days. With only 8 justices, that timeframe will inevitably grow longer, prolonging the agony for citizens whose rights have already been trampled. And what will they receive in return? Prolonged suffering and your system’s calculated indifference. 

Mr. Choi Sang-mok, I urge you. Stop treating the Court like a chessboard for political strategy. Enough with the political calculus. It is time to focus on fixing the mess you have helped create. The first, obvious step? Immediately appoint Ma Eun-hyeok as a constitutional justice. 

And in case you need a reminder, here are landmark cases where the Constitutional Court served as a lifeline for justice: 

 [Major Constitutional Court Decisions on Constitutional Complaints Regarding Infringement of Fundamental Rights] 

○ Case on Administrative Inaction Regarding Compensation Claims of Japanese Military Comfort Women Victims Against Japan <2006Hun-Ma788> 

The Constitutional Court ruled that the inaction of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade was unconstitutional for failing to take measures to resolve the dispute between South Korea and Japan regarding the extinction of compensation claims held by Japanese military comfort women victims against Japan: 

○ Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (Kim Young-ran Act) Case <2015Hun-Ma236, etc.> 

The Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of provisions related to journalists and private school officials in the "Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and Graft," which had been controversial prior to its implementation. 

○ Case on Access to Investigation Records <94Hun-Ma60> 

The Court declared it unconstitutional for prosecutors to deny defense attorneys' requests to access and copy investigation records.

○ Case on Infringement of Right to Equality Regarding Disability Call Taxis Without Standards for Bed-type Wheelchairs <2019Hun-Ma1234> 

The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 6(3) and Appendix 1-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons, which only set safety standards for wheelchair fixation based on standard wheelchairs in special means of transportation, is incompatible with the Constitution. The Court ordered that this provision should continue to apply until December 31, 2024, by which time the legislature should amend it.

January 6, 2025

Sunwoo Kang, Chair of International Committee, Democratic Party of Korea​​