President Lee faces pressure over veto on supplementary investigation authority abolition

The Reform Party urged President Lee Jae-myung to exercise his veto power regarding a Criminal Procedure Act amendment aimed at abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority. With the ruling party-led bill passing through the National Assembly, the opposition intensified political pressure targeting the president's final decision.

Reform Party Chairman Lee Jun-seok stated at a Supreme Council meeting held at the National Assembly on the 3rd that abolishing supplementary investigation authority is "a law that disarms the weak and allows them to escape punishment." He argued that this measure contradicts President Lee's policy direction of "strengthening the weak and checking the strong."

Chairman Lee said, "If the veto is not used, this law will remain not only as a law made by the Democratic Party but also as a law the president failed to block." He emphasized that the final responsibility for the bill rests not only with the National Assembly but also on whether the president exercises veto power.

[Provided by Yonhapnews]

▲ "Conflict with prosecution is a political issue; criminal justice is a national issue"

Chairman Lee cited the prosecution's investigation into the late former President Roh Moo-hyun and argued that the political conflict between the Democratic Party and prosecutors should be separated from criminal justice system reform.

He stated, "The troubled relationship with the prosecution is a private matter of the Democratic Party as a political force, but the criminal justice system is an affair of the entire nation," emphasizing that supplementary investigation functions could be an important tool for ordinary citizens who cannot afford expensive legal representation.

This was based on the logic that investigative mechanisms to address shortcomings in the investigation process should not be eliminated merely for the political justification of reducing prosecutorial power. He raised the issue that adjustments in roles among investigative agencies could affect not only the efficiency of criminal justice but also victim protection and clarification of substantive truth.

▲ Cheon Ha-ram: "President bears responsibility if veto is not exercised"

Reform Party Floor Leader Cheon Ha-ram applied stronger pressure directly on President Lee. She argued that if the president does not exercise veto power, President Lee would not be free from responsibility for abolishing supplementary investigation authority.

Floor Leader Cheon stated, "If the veto is not exercised, President Lee is also an accomplice to the abolition of supplementary investigation authority," and strongly criticized government officials. Beyond opposing the bill itself, she sent a message that the president's veto decision would serve as a standard for future political responsibility.

In particular, she cited critical responses left by Kim Jin-joo, a victim of the Busan retaliatory kick incident, on the SNS of Congressman Kim Yong-min following the bill's processing, and argued that institutional reform should be viewed from the perspective of victims.

▲ Core dispute centers on collision between "prosecutorial reform" and "investigative gaps"

The core of the supplementary investigation authority abolition controversy lay in the collision between the rationale of prosecutorial reform and safeguards to prevent investigative gaps. While there was logic that reducing direct investigation by prosecutors and supplementary investigation functions could strengthen authority distribution among investigative agencies and democratic oversight, concerns were also raised that mechanisms to supplement incomplete investigations could be weakened.

The Reform Party focused intensively on the latter issue. In particular, by highlighting the possibility that ordinary citizens and crime victims lacking economic and legal response capabilities could face disadvantages in investigations, they argued that abolishing supplementary investigation authority goes beyond simply reducing prosecutorial authority and constitutes an issue of protecting citizens' rights.

Meanwhile, the ruling camp promoting the bill maintains that reducing prosecutorial investigative authority and separating investigation and prosecution functions is the core of prosecutorial reform. Ultimately, the abolition of supplementary investigation authority could be viewed as an issue intertwined with how much prosecutorial authority to recognize and which agency should be responsible for errors and gaps that may occur in investigations.

▲ President Lee's choice determines political accountability

The ball has now passed to President Lee. If the president exercises veto power, the ruling camp must bear the political burden of braking prosecutorial reform it has pursued, while accepting the bill as is would mean facing direct attacks on accountability from the opposition, including the Reform Party.

The Reform Party made clear its strategy to make President Lee's choice a crucial turning point in future criminal justice system debates. Chairman Lee's invocation of "strengthening the weak and checking the strong" and Floor Leader Cheon's raising of presidential accountability were all part of such political pressure.

Ultimately, this debate has expanded beyond the question of maintaining or abolishing supplementary investigation authority to simultaneously address prosecutorial reform direction and citizens' rights to investigation and victim relief. Depending on what decision President Lee makes, both the ruling camp's prosecutorial reform drive and the opposition's offensive are likely to enter new phases.