Today (27th) at the Constitutional Court, Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon and the National Assembly have a dispute over whether the National Assembly's 'completely deprived of the prosecution's investigation authority' legislation infringed the prosecutor's authority.



At 2 pm, the Constitutional Court will hold a public hearing in the case of the power dispute trial between Minister Han Dong-hoon and the National Assembly at the Grand Tribunal in Jongno-gu, Seoul.



The issue is whether 'the prosecutor's investigative power' is based on the Constitution.



The Ministry of Justice and the prosecution argue that the Constitution recognizes the investigative power of prosecutors based on Articles 12(3) and 16 of the Constitution, which designates the person who applied for a warrant for arrest, detention, and search and seizure as a prosecutor.



For this reason, the purpose of 'examination', which was allowed only in exceptional cases while preventing the prosecution's investigation in principle, is against the Constitution, and once the police judges 'not guilty', even if it is wrong, the prosecution cannot correct or supplement it. It is the position of the Ministry of Justice and the Prosecutors' Office that it can harm the basic rights of the government.



In addition, it is pointed out that there are procedural problems as the Democratic Party of Korea unilaterally pushes through legislation, blocking rational discussion opportunities by 'leaving a member of the party disguised as a member of the party' and 'splitting the session'.



On the other hand, the National Assembly argues with the logic that there is no section in the Constitution that stipulates 'the prosecutor's right to investigate'.



It is a matter of deciding which institution the investigative authority belongs to by law according to the circumstances of the times.



The prosecution's warrant application system does not presuppose investigative power, but the 'complete inspection' legislation does not reduce or restrict the right to apply for a warrant, but reduces and adjusts the investigative power. is unfolding.



The National Assembly also emphasizes that it is not reasonable to fight the issue of infringement of authority because the authority of prosecutors has been expanded again with the enforcement ordinance of the 'Inspector's Uniform' (restoration of the prosecutor's investigative authority) recently made by the Ministry of Justice.



On this day, Minister Han will personally explain legal issues in front of the judges of the Constitutional Court through all of the pleadings.



Prosecutors such as Kang Il-won, a former Constitutional Court judge, and other attorneys take charge of the full-scale pleading, and Lee In-ho, a professor at Chung-Ang University Law School, appears as a witness and supports the logic.



The National Assembly, which appointed lawyer Noh Hee-beom, a former constitutional researcher, as a representative, selected Lee Hwang-hee, a professor at Sungkyunkwan University Law School, as a reference.



Dispute adjudication is a procedure in which the Constitutional Court makes a decision on the jurisdiction of the constitutional courts in case of disputes over the existence or scope of authority among state agencies.



If the National Assembly's act of enacting or amending laws becomes a problem, as in this case, not only defects in the legislative process, but also whether the law itself is unconstitutional can be reviewed.



All judges (9 judges) of the Constitutional Court hear, and if a majority (5 or more) of the judges agrees, a decision can be made to cite, dismiss, or dismiss.



Although there is no precedent, some argue that the consent of at least six judges is required to make a decision on the constitutionality of the law from a power dispute trial.