 |
|
| ▲ From left, Lee Myung-bak and former President Park Geun-hye. | |
| Ⓒ Oh My News |
See related photos |
It’s cluttered from the beginning of the new year. It is because of the’remission controversy’. The pros and cons are also tight. Lee Nak-yeon, the leader of the Democratic Party, who raised the pardon, said that it was a remark from the ‘loyalty of national unity,’ but it is spreading as ‘national conflict’, so the purpose is unclear.
The president’s right to amnesty is an inherent power guaranteed by the Constitution. General pardons must go through the procedure for consent to the National Assembly, but special pardons are finished when the president approves it through a state council meeting. There are no checks or sanctions. Therefore, the problem with the current special pardon is that the only way to actually check the unfair special pardon is’public opinion’.
We know the end of pardon without apology and reflection
Throughout history, presidents have used pardons. Good investigations such as’national integration’ and’overcoming economic difficulties’ followed. President Roh Tae-woo released the main criminals of the five-prong corruption from prison, and President Kim Young-sam visited two former presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, who were sentenced to medium sentences, and other chaebol presidents who were involved in illegal slush funds, such as Lee Kun-hee, Kim Woo-jung, and Choi Won-seok.
The democratic government was no exception to the temptation of a special pardon. President Kim Dae-jung pardoned politicians such as Jang Hak-ro, Lee Yang-ho, Kwon No-gap, and Jeong Jae-cheol, who had been felony for political conflict and corruption, and reinstated those involved in five-prong corruption such as Jang Se-dong. There is a precedent that President Roh Moo-hyun also excused economic figures and close associates who were involved in illegal political funding through methods such as breaking a car and breaking books. Rather, it is unusual that the number of amnesty has decreased due to the Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye governments.
If two ex-presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye are pardoned, it is predicted that the biggest controversy in history will be. It is different from the special pardons made by Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo that were proposed by President-elect Kim Dae-jung and accepted by President Kim Young-sam. As the subject of the amnesty was the party who suffered political repression and torment under the authoritarian regime in the past, the plausible cause of’forgiveness and reconciliation’ and the desperate economic crisis of the foreign exchange crisis alleviated the resistance of the people. However, what kind of consequences the political amnesty without apology and reflection can bring about was reduced through the recent resentment of former President Chun Doo-hwan.
A fundamental question
 |
|
| ▲ On the morning of March 10, 2017, the sentence of impeachment of President Park Geun-hye was held at the Supreme Court of Justice at the Constitutional Court in Jae-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, presided over by President Jeong-mi Lee, acting as acting president of the Constitutional Court. Representative Lee is retiring after sentenced to a decision citing the impeachment of the president. | |
| Ⓒ Photo Cooperative Foundation |
See related photos |
Former President Park Geun-hye’s special pardon raises more fundamental questions to us. Can the President have the legal and ethical justification for the’exemption’ of the’impeached president’ through the National Assembly impeachment prosecution and the constitutional ruling? Of course, it can be bypassed that the category of special pardon applies to the’Supreme Court decision’ rather than the constitutional decision. However, this is a blindfold. This is because the reasons for the constitution’s impeachment citation include the grave offense of former President Park.
Therefore, the special pardon for politicians and businessmen promoted by previous regimes and the special pardon for former President Park Geun-hye are essentially different. The controversy right now is a conflict between the values of the constitution, and it is highly likely to violate the basic spirit of separation of powers. Moreover, the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye was the result of the’democratic civil revolution’, which took place through the widest range of public resistance and participation in our history. If the president’s right to amnesty is unilaterally executed without a public consent process, many citizens will feel considerable collapse and helplessness. This is the reason why some people hear self-help mixed lament,’Did I hold a candle to do this?’
Extrajudicial amnesty undermines judicial justice, distorts the separation of powers, and raises political preferences and debates. Contrary to its original purpose, it often causes social conflict and confusion, so there are many cases where checks are placed as laws and institutions.
In the case of Germany, only four amnesty was enforced after World War II, and the reason for this was limited to’correcting errors in the investigation process’, thereby fundamentally limiting the preferential amnesty. France prohibits pardons for corrupt officials, electoral violators, terrorist criminals, and minor assaulters.
However, the Republic of Korea’s’amnesty law’ provides’as the president’s intention’ and’absolute indulgence for felony criminals’. The Amnesty Act enacted in 1948 was revised for the first time in 2008, 60 years later, and in the process of special amnesty, the Amnesty Review Committee, headed by the Minister of Justice, had to go through the review. However, even after that, whenever amnesty emerged as an issue, the controversy over abuse did not disappear.
Is it persuasive, have you already forgotten the lesson?
 |
|
| ▲ On the afternoon of March 9, 2017, on the eve of the impeachment trial, citizens who participated in a candlelight rallies urging the Constitutional Court to cite President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment on the afternoon of March 9, 2017 marching toward the Constitution. | |
| Ⓒ Lee Hee-hoon |
See related photos |
It was none other than Lee Nak-yeon, who was wary of the’sweet temptation of pardon’. He criticized President Roh Moo-hyun’s special amnesty in 2005, and on June 13 of that year, he representatively proposed the’Amendment to the Right of Amnesty’. The main contents of the amendment are as follows.
▲ The President must seek the opinion of the Chief Justice in performing special pardons, commuting sentences and rehabilitation for certain persons.
▲ When the Minister of Justice awards a special pardon, commutation of punishment, or rehabilitation for a specific person, it must go through deliberation by the Amnesty Review Committee.
▲ Special pardons cannot be granted for crimes of genocide, constitutional order destruction, crimes in which the right to serve in public office is restricted according to the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, the Political Fund Act, and the Act on the Greater Punishment of Specific Crimes. In addition, special pardons shall not be granted even when one year has not elapsed after receiving a final judgment or a third of the sentence has not elapsed.
This amendment was abolished by reflecting the alternative, but among the revisions, only the sections related to the Amnesty Review Committee survived. Although abolished, if the amendment bill by President Nak-yeon Lee passed the original bill, it is highly likely that the two former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye would be excluded from the special pardon. This is because the chief justice of the Supreme Court had no reason to agree to pardon the felony convicted by the Supreme Court, and the sentence was not fulfilled as a result of the final judgment, and both were convicted of felony convictions for violating the constitutional order and the Political Fund Act.
Above all, the cause of the special pardon proposal is frankly breaking. Is the justification that’it is difficult to get through the national crisis this way’ is convincing? It was the people who overcame the crisis with all their might against the unprecedented corona pandemic over the past year. Furthermore, the end of the long tunnel is slowly being seen through the February vaccination and effective quarantine measures. It is questionable what practical help would be given to the two former presidents to quarantine and overcome the coronavirus.
The April by-election election is on the verge. Falling government approval ratings, declining preference for presidential candidates, and people who are classified as opposition are rising to the top of the presidential candidate preferences. At this point, amnesty can only be seen as a political means to make up for the political crisis. Even if it is a political game, if it is to undermine the value of the constitution and lack democratic legitimacy, it is likely to be a self-defect.
Article 79 of the Constitution guarantees the president’s right to amnesty. However, Article 11 of the Constitution states that’all citizens are equal before the law’. The’political pardon’ that goes against the constitutional decision and the will of the people becomes a double-edged sword and can return to a headwind of public sentiment. Even in the old days when it was exercised as a silver war of absolute monarchs, it was said that’a wrong pardon hurts both the king and the people’. Even Taejong Dang, who was in power, warned, saying,’Amnesty is a child’s good fortune and a monarch’s misfortune.’
From the first day of the new year, after hearing the talk of pardoning national felony crimes, it is unavoidable to once again ask myself,’did I hold a candle to do this?’ Have you already forgotten the lesson of the last square that there is no power to overcome public sentiment?