[Actually] End of inspection... Who violated the National Assembly Advancement Act?

The complete deprivation of the prosecution's investigative powers, the so-called 'complete inspection' bill, was completed today.

Controversy is hot.

The opposition and opposition parties are claiming that they trampled the National Assembly Advancement Act towards each other while the bill was being processed.

These are the remarks of the two major political parties.

There are aspects that it is difficult to argue because it is the realm of politics, but the SBS faction team saw the need to thoroughly verify each other's claims when considering the seriousness of the matter.

We looked at what part of the National Assembly Advancement Act was violated.

Enlarging an image

Three Axis of the National Assembly Advancement Act: Prohibition of Violence, Agenda Mediation Committee, and filibuster

The National Assembly Advancement Act was dealt with in the last plenary session of the 18th National Assembly in May 2012.

In November 2011, former United Progressive Party member Kim Seon-dong threw tear gas at the National Assembly plenary session in protest against the resolution of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement.

The National Assembly Advancement Act was named the so-called 'Body Fight Prevention Act', and provided regulations that strictly punish violence in the National Assembly.

Enlarging an image

In November 2011, former United Progressive Party member Kim Seon-dong exploded tear gas in the main assembly hall of the National Assembly.

Article 148 of the National Assembly Act

.

…

Do not bring in objects or food that interfere with the progress of the meeting.

…

…

Violence, etc. shall not be conducted in or near the conference hall.

The Democratic Party is arguing that the people's power used physical violence in the process of handling the bill and that it violated the National Assembly Advancement Act.

The people's power claim is focused elsewhere.

This part is a bit complicated, so let's take a long look.

The National Assembly Advancement Act goes beyond simply banning violence, and includes a system to 'prevent' violence.

To the extent that the main reasons for violence in the National Assembly occur when large parties are at their will, we have prepared a buffer to prevent the monopoly of large parties.

There are two main things.

'Agenda Mediation Committee' and 'Filibuster'.

Consider the process by which laws are made.

First, a lawmaker or government drafts a law.

This is the so-called 'initiation'.

Then, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly discusses it and decides whether to pass it through a decision-making process.

If it is passed, it is the next time the Legislative Judiciary Committee will consider it.

The Judiciary Committee examines whether there are any errors in the contents of the law.

It is called system and self-examination.

If it is passed through the Judiciary Committee, it will go to the plenary session.

If the bill is passed to the government and promulgated by a majority vote in the plenary session, the legislative process is completed.

Enlarging an image

However, the National Assembly Advancement Act has set up hurdles to prevent it from being passed without permission due to the large number of lawmakers.

Another hurdle called the 'Agenda Mediation Committee' during the discussion stage of the Standing Committee and the 'Filibuster' at the plenary session.

First, let's take a look at the Agenda Coordination Committee.

23 times of the 21st National Assembly's agenda coordination committee, in 3 to 4 minutes

As you know, the National Assembly can pass a law if more than half of it is present and a majority approves it.

However, this cannot be done once the agenda coordination committee is formed.

We have compiled the law.

Article 57-2 of the National Assembly Act, the

Mediation Committee …

…

It consists of 6 people.

…

…

(6 members) equalize the number of parties with the largest number of members of parliament and those with the least number of members.

…

…

Decisions are made by a two-thirds majority vote here.

That is, no matter how many political parties have a large number of seats, if an agenda mediation committee is formed, a two-thirds majority of votes can be obtained for the law to proceed to the next stage.

Simply put, it means that the ruling and opposition parties should form an equal number of 3 to 3 committee members to balance their power, and then discuss, deliberate, and persuade each other.

If so, did the National Assembly persuade and debate it through the Agenda Mediation Committee?

I analyzed the entire agenda of the 21st National Assembly's agenda coordination committee.

For reference, the recently held Inspection and Completion Law Agenda Coordination Committee was excluded because the minutes of its meetings have not yet been released.

Enlarging an image

The Agenda Coordination Committee of the 21st National Assembly held a total of 23 times (excluding the Inspection and Complete Act Agenda Coordination Committee).

There are 141 bills on the conciliation committee.

Since a lot of similar bills are grouped together for deliberation, it can be viewed as 23 meetings rather than 141 times.

The SBS fact-finding team also analyzed all 23 meeting times.

The Basic Educational Attainment Act Agenda Coordination Committee discussed 3 minutes, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 4 minutes, and the Digital Distance Education Act 5 minutes.

However, the Airborne Law Act, which was highly controversial in society, lasted 1 hour and 17 minutes, and the Media Arbitration Act was 1 hour and 47 minutes.

All calculations were made excluding meeting time.

I took the average and it came out to be 51 minutes.

It is a system created by the Agenda Mediation Committee for in-depth discussion and deliberation, and 6 lawmakers held an average meeting of 51 minutes.

In fact, only three meetings were held twice on a single bill, and only three bills were not passed as a result of the discussion.

In other words, in most cases, the meeting was 'one time' and 'passed' immediately.

It is a meeting that can only be passed when the opposition and opposition parties balance their powers by a 3 to 3 equal vote and two-thirds vote in favor.

Why did this happen?

The following table explains why.

Enlarging an image

Again, the agenda coordination committee consists of the party with the most number of members and the party with the least number of members '3 to 3'.

In other words, in the 21st National Assembly, the Democratic Party is the largest party with more than a majority, so if there are 3 Democrats, there are 3 other parties.

Non-Democratic members are usually composed of two members of the People's Power and one independent member of another party or party.

However, if you look at that side, you can see that many of them are pro-Democratic.

In a total of 23 meetings, 12 members of the former Open Democrats, who are now fit for the Democratic Party, and 4 independents from the Democratic Party were included.

In fact, they are on the same track with the Democrats.

Due to this situation, the power of the people sometimes boycotts the Agenda Coordination Committee.

Of the 23 meetings, there were 10 cases in which the People's Strength committee did not attend.

In the previous 20th National Assembly, 10 agenda coordination committee meetings were held, but the people's power was absent only once.

In simple terms, the ratio of the opposition parties becomes '4 to 2' rather than '3 to 3'. it will.

It also means that the purpose of the National Assembly Advancement Act has faded.

As a result, the Agenda Coordination Committee has become a means of 'quick resolution' rather than 'consideration'.

Enlarging an image

Independent lawmaker Min Hyung-bae

In particular, it peaked when Rep. Min Hyung-bae left the Democratic Party.

An independent lawmaker who had left the ruling party went to the position of the agenda coordinator, which was given to the opposition party.

That's why the phrase 'disguised dissociation' comes up.

A filibuster that is about to fall soon with 'splitting the turn'

If the National Assembly Advancement Act made the agenda coordination committee a hurdle in the discussion stage of the standing committee, the filibuster is the hurdle of the plenary session, the last gateway.

Here are the rules:

Article 106-2 of the National Assembly Act

…

…

In case of unlimited discussion, a request signed by at least one-third of the total number of members must be submitted to the chairperson.

In this case, the chairperson shall hold an unrestricted discussion on the relevant agenda.

…

…

If the relevant session ends while the unrestricted debate is being held, it is deemed that the end of the unrestricted debate has been declared.

In this case, the relevant agenda shall be voted on without delay in the immediately following session.

A filibuster is a legal guarantee against legally obstructing the proceedings right before the vote in the plenary session of the National Assembly.

However, it is not literally 'unlimited'.

In simple terms, the National Assembly operates on a 'season system'.

The March National Assembly, the April National Assembly, the May National Assembly, and so on, each season has a start date and an end date.

This is called a 'session', and regulations have been made so that even if a filibuster is done, the session ends at the same time as the National Assembly session ends.

Because you can't do endless filibusters.

Enlarging an image

In February 2016, Lee Jong-geol, then floor leader, was the last speaker on the filibuster of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

The first filibuster since the enforcement of the National Assembly Advancement Act was the 'Anti-Terrorism Act' filibuster of the Democratic Party in February 2016.

At that time, it lasted over 192 hours over 9 days, but it ended with the end of the National Assembly session.

It was the first filibuster since democratization, and the members who participated in the relay debate repeatedly broke the record for the longest speeches, drawing attention from foreign media.

However, since then, the filibuster has come up with a 'split session' strategy.

If the outnumbered party ends its session early, the filibuster ends at the same time.

Since the session can be decided by a vote, if you just end it and hold the plenary session the next day, the main voting can begin.

This time, the censorship bill could be dealt with quickly with this kind of splitting strategy.

After all, who violated the National Assembly Advancement Act?

A series of acts such as disguised leaving the party to establish an agenda coordinator and splitting rounds to end the filibuster quickly are a 'myo-an' (from the Democratic Party's point of view), or (from the point of view of the people's power), within the framework of the National Assembly Act containing the National Assembly Advancement Act. It's a 'trick'.

In other words, if the phrase contained in the National Assembly Act is applied as it is, it is not easy to determine who broke the law.

That's why it's a 'myoan', and that's why it's probably a 'trick'.

Enlarging an image

In Yeouido, there is a saying that "there is a constitution above the National Assembly Act, and there is an agreement between the parties above the constitution".

Parliamentary law is a typical political law.

The purpose of this is to suggest the degree of 'standard' of the decision-making process, and for the details to be decided by the members of the National Assembly, which are constitutional institutions, 'on their own', in consultation and agreement.

In other words, consultations and agreements between the opposition parties are bound to play an important role.

As such, the National Assembly Act encourages democratic decision-making by guaranteeing the autonomy of lawmakers as much as possible.

In other words, it would mean that the will of those dealing with the National Assembly law is more important than the institutional device itself.

This is the reason why there is a lot of thought about whether the process of handling the Inspection and Waiver Act conforms to the 'procedural justice'.

I will close with a speech by former US President Barack Obama.

In November 2013, while former President Barack Obama was addressing the immigration reform bill, a Korean student shouted, "Issue an executive order to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants."

He even joins the audience in the young man's cry, "Stop the exile!"

shouted slogans.

As the bodyguards are about to take the young man out, former President Obama replies:

Enlarging an image

The SBS Fact-Eun team looked at the claims of the ruling and opposition parties that each violated the National Assembly Advancement Act in relation to the recently controversial bill of oversight.

If we look at the original text of the National Assembly Advancement Act as it is, it is difficult to discuss the subject of the violation.

In this regard, the fact-eun team will withhold judgment on whether it is true or not.

However, I believe that this case is more than a judgment.

Between 'myoan' and 'trick', the National Assembly Advancement Act has the potential to be distorted and used.

Indeed, the viewers' evaluation of whether the representatives of the people and the lawmakers who are constitutional institutions one by one are properly handling the justice of the procedure remains.