Constitutional Court Nominee Oh Young-jun Supports Judicial Review Appeals: 'Court Rulings Should Be Subject to Constitutional Appeals'

Breaking: Constitutional Court Nominee Endorses Controversial Judicial Reform

On July 16, 2025, Oh Young-jun, the Constitutional Court justice nominee, made headlines by expressing his support for the introduction of judicial review appeals, a controversial judicial reform initiative pushed by the ruling Democratic Party. In his written response to the National Assembly's Judiciary Committee, Oh stated that judicial actions should be subject to constitutional appeals to ensure comprehensive protection of citizens' fundamental rights.

This announcement comes at a critical time when South Korea's judicial system is undergoing significant scrutiny and potential reforms. The nominee's stance on this contentious issue has sparked intense debate among legal experts and politicians, with implications that could reshape the country's judicial landscape.

Understanding Judicial Review Appeals: A Paradigm Shift in Korean Law

Judicial review appeals, known as 'jaepan-sowon' in Korean, represent a fundamental change in how the Korean legal system operates. Currently, the Supreme Court serves as the final arbiter of legal disputes, but the proposed system would allow citizens to challenge court rulings through constitutional appeals to the Constitutional Court.

Oh Young-jun emphasized that 'legislative, administrative, and judicial actions should all be included as subjects of constitutional appeal trials to prevent gaps in protecting citizens' fundamental rights'. This comprehensive approach would essentially create what critics describe as a 'fourth-tier court system,' potentially shifting the Supreme Court's final authority to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court itself has previously expressed support for this reform, submitting favorable opinions to the National Assembly in 2013, 2017, and most recently in 2025. The court argued that such reforms are necessary for 'faithful protection of citizens' fundamental rights' and cited examples from Germany, Taiwan, Spain, Czech Republic, and Turkey where similar systems exist.

Political Context: Democratic Party's Strategic Push for Judicial Reform

The Democratic Party's push for judicial review appeals cannot be separated from recent political developments surrounding Lee Jae-myung's legal troubles. After the Supreme Court's decision to overturn and remand Lee's election law violation case, the Democratic Party accelerated its efforts to introduce judicial review appeals as part of a broader judicial reform package.

The proposed amendment to Article 68 of the Constitutional Court Act would allow 'court rulings' to be subject to constitutional appeals. This move is widely interpreted as a response to what the Democratic Party perceives as unfavorable Supreme Court decisions.

President Lee Jae-myung's election promises also include expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, though Oh Young-jun noted that while the current Supreme Court system needs improvement due to excessive caseloads, simply comparing the number of justices with other countries is not appropriate for determining expansion scale.

Legal Community Divided: Supporters vs. Critics

The legal community remains sharply divided on the judicial review appeals issue. Supporters argue that the current system creates significant gaps in rights protection, as Constitutional Court appeals cannot challenge Supreme Court decisions even when constitutional issues are involved. They contend that citizens should have access to constitutional review regardless of which court made the final decision.

However, critics raise serious concerns about the practical implications. The Supreme Court Administration has explicitly opposed the proposal, with Court Administration Director Cheon Dae-yeop stating that 'judicial review appeals are not permitted under the current Constitution' and that introducing such a system would 'effectively create a fourth-tier court system'.

The fundamental concern is that this reform could undermine the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of legal disputes, potentially creating jurisdictional conflicts between the two highest courts. Legal experts worry about the practical challenges of having two supreme authorities in the judicial system.

Oh Young-jun's Balanced Approach to Institutional Conflicts

Addressing concerns about potential conflicts between the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court, Oh Young-jun proposed a diplomatic solution. He suggested that 'both institutions should perform their respective functions in a direction that guarantees citizens' fundamental rights while respecting each other's opinions'.

Particularly noteworthy is his expectation that 'the Supreme Court would respect legislative changes if judicial review appeals are introduced through legal amendments by the National Assembly, which represents the people'. This statement reflects his belief in legislative supremacy while acknowledging the need for institutional cooperation.

When asked about the Constitutional Court's authority to overturn Supreme Court decisions, Oh responded that 'if the Constitutional Court makes an acceptance decision overturning court rulings, the Supreme Court should respect and accept this as Constitutional Court decisions are binding on all state institutions and local governments'.

Addressing Implementation Challenges and Concerns

Oh Young-jun acknowledged several practical challenges that would arise from implementing judicial review appeals. Regarding concerns about increased caseloads potentially delaying Constitutional Court proceedings, he suggested that 'strengthening preliminary screening of constitutional appeal trials or enabling designated panel dismissal decisions could introduce judicial review appeals without significantly increasing case burdens'.

He also addressed the '4th-tier court system' criticism by stating that 'whether to introduce constitutional appeals against rulings, concerns about side effects from system introduction, faithful guarantee of citizens' fundamental rights, efficient distribution of state functions, and the history and experience of constitutional trials should all be comprehensively considered by legislators representing the people'.

This pragmatic approach suggests that while Oh supports the principle of judicial review appeals, he recognizes the need for careful implementation to avoid disrupting the judicial system's effectiveness.

Future Implications for Korean Judicial System

The introduction of judicial review appeals could fundamentally alter South Korea's judicial landscape. If implemented, this system would represent one of the most significant judicial reforms in the country's modern history, potentially affecting how major legal disputes are resolved.

The reform's success would largely depend on how well the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court can coordinate their roles without creating jurisdictional conflicts. Oh Young-jun's appointment as Constitutional Court justice, if confirmed, would place him at the center of these potential changes.

For international observers, South Korea's experience with judicial review appeals could provide valuable insights into how established judicial systems can adapt to changing democratic expectations while maintaining institutional stability. The reform reflects broader global trends toward expanding constitutional review mechanisms to ensure comprehensive protection of fundamental rights.

As South Korea continues to navigate these judicial reforms, the balance between institutional independence, democratic accountability, and effective rights protection will remain a central challenge for the country's legal system.