카테고리 없음

Sleeping Constitutional Court, silent about constitutional appeal five years ago?!

opengirok 2011. 7. 27. 11:18


 

Translated by SOORIN KIM(voluntarily activist)


In 2009, the Center for Freedom of Information and Transparent Society (CFOI) filed a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court of Korea. After that, seasons wheeled around and 3 years have passed but the Constitutional Court is still keeping its silence.

 

Why did CFOI file a constitutional appeal? In 2009, we filed a FOIA request to the National Archives of Korea for the lists of documents newly being disclosed. Few days later the Archives replied to our request and said that they would release the lists, but with a charge of 5.4 million won. The 270 hard copies is indeed quite a lot, but in electronic forms, they only consist of 97 files. Does it really cost 5.4 million won just to organize the data into digital files and e-mail them? We came to think that the clause of the Official Information Disclosure Act ruling the process of charging fee on the copies significantly threats people’s right to know. So we filed a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court to make a judgment on whether the immoderate charge of fee might violate the Constitution of Korea. But the Court   hasn’t made any decision for more than 3 years.                  




So, CFOI filed a FOIA request to the Constitutional Court for the information regarding the current condition of processing the constitutional appeals from 2005 to the 1st of June 2011. According to the released records of the Court, the number of constitutional appeals registered for the six years and five months is 8,442. Among these, those still on trial are 646 cases.

 

2008.04.01

2008 no.302

Check the constitutionality of the Public Official Election Law Article 60 Chapter 3 Clause 2

2008.04.29

submitted

On trial

2008.02.29

2008 no.214

Check the constitutionality of the Constitutional Court Act Article 68 Clause 1

2008.03.11

submitted

On trial

2008.02.25

2008 no.13

Check the constitutionality of the latter part of Built Environmental Renewal Development Act Article 65 Clause 2

2008.03.18

submitted

On trial

2007.10.24

2007 no.1190

Check the constitutionality of Private School Act such as Article 20 Clause 2

2007.11.20

submitted

On trial

2007.10.24

2007 no.1189

Check the constitutionality of Private School Act such as Article 14 Clause 3

2007.11.20

submitted

On trial

2007.09.21

2007 no.1083

Check the constitutionality of Foreign Laborers Act such as Article 25 Clause 4

2007.10.16

submitted

On trial

2007.09.05

2007 no.1001

Check the constitutionality of Public Official Election Act such as Article 93 Clause 1

2007.09.18

submitted

On trial

2006.07.05

2006 no.788

Check the constitutionality of omission of Korea-Japan Treaty regarding Property Reclamation and Economic Cooperation Article 3

2006.07.25

submitted

On trial



Taking a deeper look as this, we can see some problems here. According to the Provision 38 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Constitutional Court must announce final decision within 180 days since the case is registered. This means that 400 cases are still pending even though the processing due date has expired.

 

The oldest case sitting on the bench is the constitutional appeal on <the pact regarding the solution of problems with property and claim between ROK and Japan and the economic cooperation between the two nations>. It’s been under trial since the July of 2006 but is still not solved. The Constitutional Court has been neglecting the case for six years, which should have been handled within six months.

 

  Skimming through the pending cases, we can find many appeals on the laws enacted for protecting minorities or supporting the foundation of the nation, such as minimum wage law, election law, the military service law and private school law. This means that those laws may have some defects or contents colliding with constitutional right. But the Constitutional Court hasn’t taken quick action. If even the Constitutional Court is like this, what are we supposed to do to protect our rights?


Must the teardrops of the people that suffer from the flawed laws become the kiss to wake the sleeping Constitutional Court?

original Korean version of this post and attached files