Presidential Office Issues Unprecedented Second Rebuttal to Cho Heedae: "Is He Saying Only He Doesn't Know the Grounds for Resubmission?"

President and Chief Justice Cho Clash Directly on the 22nd

Cho Heedae Declares, "I Cannot Comply with the Resubmission Request"

Presidential Office Directly Rebuts Cho Twice

Toward the Chief Justice: "Distorting Facts, Violating the C

The Blue House on the 22nd criticized Chief Justice Hoidae Cho's statement, saying, "He distorted the facts as if the president's request for resubmission failed to comply with the written principle and the countersignature system stipulated by the Constitution." Regarding Chief Justice Cho's claim that "there are no grounds for resubmission," the Blue House pointed out, "Is the Chief Justice the only one who does not know the reasons that are apparent to all citizens?"

The Blue House issued rebuttals to Chief Justice Cho's statement twice on this day. It is unusual for the Blue House to issue additional press releases as rebuttals on a single matter. In the initial notice, the Blue House criticized Chief Justice Cho in a relatively brief manner, but several hours later, it cited and refuted each part of Chief Justice Cho's statement in detail.

Chief Justice Hoidae Cho is arriving at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu on the 22nd. 2026.9.22 Photo by Yonhap News

That morning, Chief Justice Cho declared that he could not comply with the Blue House’s request to resubmit a candidate for Supreme Court Justice. He told reporters: "The president's acts according to the law must be carried out with documents countersigned by the prime minister and the relevant ministers." However, the Blue House responded, "The official document was issued electronically and countersigned by the prime minister." The Blue House explained that Chief Justice Cho depicted the resubmission request as if it were not legitimate.

Regarding the lack of countersignature from cabinet ministers, the Blue House stated, "In the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Supreme Court Justice appointments so far, only the prime minister’s countersignature has been required." The Blue House further pointed out, "If the Chief Justice claims that the absence of a countersignature from relevant ministers renders the nomination return and resubmission request invalid, he is essentially denying the validity of previous appointments made solely with the prime minister's countersignature."

The Blue House also took issue with Chief Justice Cho’s remark, "With respect to documents related to the resubmission request, all that exists is the 'request for resubmission of Supreme Court Justice candidate' dated August 28. However, it does not state the specific grounds for the resubmission, nor the constitutional basis for it."

The Blue House responded, "The president refrained from using the terms 'return' or 'rejection' in the official document out of respect for the Chief Justice, who is a constitutional institution. However, with regard to candidate Son Bonggi, the Blue House made its rejection clear, stating that, in accordance with Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution and Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Court Organization Act, it would not submit a request for parliamentary consent for the appointment."

Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states: "Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice." Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Court Organization Act states: "Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice."

Blue House: "Chief Justice Must Fulfill Obligations so as Not to Infringe Basic Rights of Citizens"

The Blue House emphasized, "Once the president has rejected the recommended candidate, the only way for the Chief Justice to fulfill his constitutional obligation to constitute the Supreme Court is to recommend a new candidate." The Blue House added, "The president politely requested the Chief Justice to 'please resubmit a candidate for Supreme Court justice' in line with constitutional procedure."

The Blue House continued, "The constitutional basis for returning the nomination was clearly articulated in the official document, and the specific reasons were explained in detail in the chief spokesperson’s briefing to the public. It is hard to understand why the Chief Justice alone claims not to know the reasons, simply because they were not stated in the document, when all citizens are aware of them."

Furthermore, the Blue House asserted: "What the people expect from the Chief Justice is not selective hearing and selective vision under the pretext of judicial independence. In order to ensure that citizens’ constitutional basic rights are not further infringed, the Chief Justice must faithfully carry out his institutional duty to constitute the Supreme Court."

Earlier, the Blue House stated in its first press notice: "Chief Justice Cho's statement implies that the Chief Justice's right to recommend candidates takes precedence over the president's right to appoint, which is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea." It further stated, "The argument that the president must appoint any candidate submitted by the Chief Justice would render the president’s appointment power, as vested by citizens, meaningless."

The Blue House also expressed "deep regret" over the Chief Justice's announcement that he would not resubmit a new candidate to succeed former Justice Noh Taeak, despite the president’s rejection of the original recommendation. The Blue House urged, "The Chief Justice must recognize that a prolonged vacancy in the Supreme Court harms the public and should not allow the current situation to persist any longer."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.