Editorials
Supplementary investigations are not for the ruling party alone
A high-profile murder case in Gwangju has intensified calls to preserve prosecutors' supplementary investigative authority as the ruling party pushes to abolish it.
The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office in Seocho District, southern Seoul, are seen on June 25, when then-Prime Minister Kim Min-seok said that the government had finalized its position in favor of abolishing prosecutors’ supplementary investigative powers.
NEWS1
The murder of a high school student in Gwangju has shaken public trust in police investigations after allegations surfaced that officers colluded with the suspect, Jang Yun-gi, whose father is a senior police official, and attempted to destroy evidence. There are also claims that the chief of Gwangju’s Gwangsan Police Station blocked investigators from pursuing rape and murder charges against Jang.
Many of the flaws in the police investigation came to light only through supplementary investigations conducted by prosecutors. Without such checks, how could we uncover attempts to conceal or distort cases?
Concerns are growing. The Korean Bar Association recently issued a statement arguing that the Jang case demonstrates the need for prosecutors’ supplementary investigative authority. The National Court Administration likewise noted that although the matter is ultimately a legislative decision, safeguards are needed to prevent unintended consequences.
Nevertheless, the leadership and hard-line faction of the Democratic Party, ahead of the party convention, appear determined to abolish prosecutors’ supplementary investigative powers. Echoing that stance, broadcaster Kim Eo-jun remarked that “there are several cases like this every year,” accusing the media of inflaming public opinion.
Those comments are deeply inappropriate. They prioritize the legitimacy of a favored reform while disregarding the suffering of the victim and her family.
President Lee Jae Myung has repeatedly expressed his belief that limited supplementary investigative powers remain necessary and warned that problems could arise if even exceptional cases are excluded. At the same time, he has said that the final decision belongs to the National Assembly. The government also operated a prosecutorial reform task force under the Prime Minister’s Office, only to hand the issue over to parliament.
But the ruling party leadership, which effectively controls the legislative process, seems unwilling to heed either the president’s views or the concerns raised by experts. Instead, it continues to move in the opposite direction from public opinion. That is precisely why calls for caution and compromise are emerging even within the party itself.
Respect for the authority of the ruling party and the National Assembly is a virtue in a president. But remaining passive in the face of legislation that could inflict serious harm on the public is not a responsible course of action.
President Lee should clearly state the government’s position and persuade hard-liners in his party to ensure that reasonable alternatives emerge through careful deliberation. If problematic legislation still passes the Assembly, he should consider exercising his constitutional power to request reconsideration — effectively a veto.
The president’s constitutional duty is not to follow the ruling party’s lead. It is to prevent citizens from suffering from flawed legislation.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
