|
President Roh Moo-hyun filed a petition with the Constitutional Court on Thursday to nullify clauses in the Election Law prohibiting the president from making political comments and engaging in political activities ahead of elections. The petition argued that the National Election Commission infringed on Roh¡¯s freedom of political expression as an individual by ruling that he violated the Election Law and urging him to observe the law. The president reiterated his claim that Article 9 of the election law, requiring public officials to remain politically neutral, is unconstitutional.
During his tenure, the president was deemed by the NEC to have violated the Election Law three times. This is a first since the establishment of the Republic of Korea. As if that was not enough, the president has dragged the head of the NEC to court. This is an embarrassing incident that reveals the level of maturity in Korea¡¯s rule of law.
The president, the symbol of Korea¡¯s public power, has filed a constitutional petition claiming that his basic rights were violated by unfair exercise of public power. This is self-contradiction of the worst type. Perhaps even he was embarrassed to file the petition as president and therefore filed it as an ¡°individual.¡± In 2003, the Constitutional Court rejected a petition filed by a news organization, saying that NEC¡¯s official request letter to observe the Election Law did not constitute an exercise of public power. The president¡¯s petition may be rejected as well before the content is even examined.
In 2004, the Constitutional Court ruled on a motion to impeach the president. In that ruling, the court said, ¡°If the president doubts the constitutional validity of a certain law, then it is his duty as a president to gain the support of the National Assembly to make legal revisions.¡± Regarding his ¡°freedom of political expression,¡± the Constitutional Court ruled, ¡°There must be a level of temperance and self control that corresponds with the importance held by the presidency. The president must not give the public the impression that he is no longer capable of conducting his duties impartially.¡± The Constitutional Court clearly stated what he should and what he shouldn¡¯t.
In 2004, when the Constitutional Court ruled that the new administrative city was unconstitutional, the president threatened the very existence of the court by saying he could not help feeling worried over the possible breakdown of order, if the Constitutional Court continues to neutralize the legislative power of the National Assembly. And that same president is now trying to test the Constitutional Court over a matter it had already ruled on.
The public is frustrated as there is nothing it can do other than impeaching the president, as he continues to take aggressive steps to neutralize the law and the Constitution. And the president knows that and is playing hardball.
|
