This article is by Kim Jun-young and read by an artificial voice.



The aftershocks are continuing from the National Assembly's passage of a bill to abolish the Prosecution Service, led by the Democratic Party (DP) on Friday.

Former justice ministers and prosecutors general declared Sunday that they would file a constitutional complaint once the law is promulgated, calling the bill "clearly unconstitutional."

'We will use all available legal means'

"We have repeatedly emphasized that the government organization law amendment that abolishes the Prosecution Service is unconstitutional and must be withdrawn," said the Prosecutors' Alumni Association and a group of former justice ministers and prosecutors general in a joint statement Sunday.

"Nevertheless, the DP pushed the bill through the National Assembly," the statement read. "We declare our intent to use every possible means to correct this antidemocratic and antihistorical revision."

The Prosecutors' Alumni Association is composed of retired prosecutors and is currently chaired by Han Sang-dae, who served as Prosecutor General from 2011 to 2012. Seven former justice ministers, including Kim Jong-goo and Kim Kyung-hwan, and seven former prosecutors general, including Song Kwang-soo and Kim Jong-bin, joined the statement.



They strongly criticized the ruling bloc, saying it was "denying both democracy and the rule of law."

The legality of the prosecution reform - long debated in legal academia - is now expected to be reviewed by the constitutional Court, which could assess the revision through a constitutional complaint, authority dispute case or constitutional review of the law.

The central constitutional issue is whether abolishing the Prosecution Service and stripping prosecutors of investigative powers violates the Constitution - specifically, whether the existence of the Prosecution Service and prosecutors' investigative authority is constitutionally guaranteed.



Is the prosecution a constitutional body?

Article 89, Paragraph 16 of the Constitution states that the appointment of the Prosecutor General must be reviewed by the State Council, while Article 12, Paragraph 3 specifies that arrests, detentions or raids require a warrant issued by a judge "upon the request of a prosecutor."

Some legal scholars interpret these provisions to mean that the office of the Prosecutor General - and by extension, the Prosecution Service - may be implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.

While the constitutional Court has never ruled on whether the Prosecution Service is a constitutional body, a frequently cited parallel is a 1989 case where an amendment to rename the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) was withdrawn over constitutional concerns.

The appointment of the chair of the JCS - like the Prosecutor General - is also subject to State Council deliberation under Article 89, Paragraph 16, and changing the title was seen as potentially unconstitutional.

The DP attempted to address this by inserting a clause in the proposed law to establish a new office for indictments under the Ministry of Justice - the body to replace the Prosecution Service - stating that its head would be regarded as the "Prosecutor General" under Article 89, Paragraph 16. However, a report by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee warned this could "undermine the supremacy of the Constitution by allowing constitutional terminology to be redefined by statute."

Since there is no precedent for interpreting constitutional terms in this manner, debate over the law's constitutionality is likely to continue.

Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho said on Sept. 10 that "the Prosecution Service is not a constitutional institution," while Acting Prosecutor General Noh Man-seok said on Wednesday that he hoped for "a prosecution reform that is successful and free from constitutional concerns," hinting at potential unconstitutionality.



Constitutional Court: 'Difficult to conclude'

The constitutional Court has previousl...