Blue House: "Cho Hoedae Is Misleading on Grounds... Understand the Document from the Perspective of a Sensible Citizen"

Cho States on the 23rd, "Grounds for Resubmission Are Unclear"
Blue House Issues Third Notice Targeting Chief Justice Cho, Criticizes Him
"President's Refusal to Appoint Is Clear to Anyone"

The Blue House has once again rebutted the additional explanation provided by Chief Justice Hoedae Cho. When Chief Justice Cho stated on the 23rd, following his comments the previous day, that “The specific grounds for resubmission are not clearly indicated,” the Blue House strongly criticized him, saying, “Chief Justice Cho is misleading the public.”

Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae is arriving at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on September 23, 2026. Photo by Yonhap News.

Through a press release that day, the Blue House stated, “It is clear from official documents that the President’s intent to refuse the appointment is unmistakably expressed, and this is the reason for requesting resubmission as a follow-up procedure.” This marks the third time the Blue House has publicly refuted Chief Justice Cho’s statement. On the 22nd, after Chief Justice Cho announced he would refuse the request for resubmission, the Blue House issued two press releases on the same day, criticizing the Chief Justice.

The Blue House explained, “The official document’s declaration of not submitting the motion for the appointment of nominee Son Bonggi to the National Assembly is a clear statement of the refusal to appoint him by not proceeding with the necessary procedures.” It further explained that even though Chief Justice Cho recommended Son Bonggi as a candidate, the official document specified, under ‘Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution’ and ‘Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Court Organization Act,’ that the motion would not be submitted to the National Assembly.

On this day, Chief Justice Cho said that it was “hard to accept that there was a procedural flaw in the recommendation process,” but the Blue House countered by labeling it a “serious procedural flaw.” The Blue House pointed out that while four candidates were duly recommended by the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee, contacting them individually to ask about their intention to withdraw was itself problematic. They criticized this practice, saying, “Attempts to exclude duly recommended candidates from being considered for appointment undermine the fairness of the process.”

Additionally, the Blue House criticized Chief Justice Cho’s claim—“I am not suggesting that there was a formal flaw in the Blue House’s official document dated August 28”—by stating, “Yesterday, you distorted the issue as if there was a formal defect under the constitutional requirement for official documentation and the collective endorsement system, but today you have backed off with a more general statement.”

The Blue House also urged, “If the Chief Justice views the President’s authority to appoint Supreme Court justices as a merely formal power that must follow his nomination, it will be difficult to accept the President’s refusal of appointment and request for resubmission as they are. We urge the Chief Justice to interpret the official document from the perspective of an ordinary citizen with common sense and promptly take follow-up measures to ensure that the people’s right to a fair trial is not infringed.”

President Lee Jaemyung is delivering a keynote speech at the United Nations General Assembly hall in New York, USA, on the 22nd (local time). September 23, 2026, Yonhap News.

Meanwhile, at the end of its press release, the Blue House included a ‘reference’ section, reiterating that “the President’s authority to appoint Supreme Court justices is not a merely formal power that compels him to appoint whomever the Chief Justice recommends.”

The Blue House explained, “Because the President obtains democratic legitimacy from the people through elections, he should be able to decide whether a candidate appointed as Supreme Court justice is suitable and meets the expectations of the people, choosing to appoint or refuse as necessary. The judiciary can secure its independence only when the President exercises substantive appointment power with democratic legitimacy and when the National Assembly consents.”

The Blue House further noted, “If the Constitution had intended for the President to be compelled to appoint whomever the Chief Justice recommends, it would have explicitly stated—as it does for three of the members of the Constitutional Court, ‘the President shall appoint those designated by the Chief Justice.’ Yet, the current Constitution stipulates, with respect to Supreme Court justices, that the Chief Justice shall ‘recommend’ (meaning to formally request a decision on a matter), not ‘designate’ them.”

They added, “Thus, to construe the President as legally bound by the Chief Justice’s recommendation would, in effect, result in the Chief Justice appointing Supreme Court justices. This interpretation would nullify the President’s constitutional power of appointment, as conferred by the democratic choice of the people, and is therefore an unconstitutional interpretation of the Constitution.”

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