Administrative Capital Legislation Gets Underway... Ruling Party: "We'll Put It First on the Agenda at Every Subcommittee on Bills Meeting"

"Different from 20 Years Ago" "A Constitutional Amendment Must Come First"
Key Issues in Legislative Discussions on the Administrative Capital, Now Underway

The National Assembly Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee opened discussions on bills related to the administrative capital at a meeting of its Subcommittee on Bills on November 11. Legislative discussions have now gathered momentum on making Sejong an administrative capital in both name and reality. With President Lee Jae-myung pledging to establish a divided-capital arrangement of “Seoul as the economic capital and Sejong as the administrative capital,” the ruling party is leading efforts to move the issue forward in the National Assembly.

A key question is whether the customary constitutional law argument that blocked past plans for an administrative capital remains valid today, and, if so, how to resolve the issue and build public consensus. Another difficult task will be reconciling opposition from opposition lawmakers outside the Chungcheong region who have no regional interests at stake.

Five bills to establish an administrative capital were on the agenda at the Subcommittee on Bills meeting that day. They had also been submitted for consideration on October 28, when the subcommittee held its first meeting of this regular session, but no meaningful conclusion was reached after opposition members in attendance expressed reservations. At the first subcommittee meeting, People Power Party lawmaker Kim Jongyang said, “I wonder whether we need to rush ahead so quickly with a special act, or whether we should be a little more cautious,” adding, “I think we should either ask the public what they think or move toward promptly pursuing a constitutional amendment.”

Accordingly, the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee put the bills on the agenda again at the second meeting of the Subcommittee on Bills that day and immediately began an article-by-article review. Bok Gikwang of the Democratic Party of Korea, the ruling party’s secretary on the committee, recently told The Asia Business Daily, “The Administrative Capital Special Act is the top-priority item on the Subcommittee on Bills’ agenda. If the opposition halts a meeting, we plan to put it first on the agenda at the next meeting as well and continue discussions.” He added, “After it passes the subcommittee, the leaders of both parties will begin full-scale negotiations on its consideration at a plenary meeting of the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee.”

The five bills would designate Sejong, with some including surrounding areas, as the administrative capital and specify the National Assembly, the Presidential Office, and foreign affairs and security ministries currently based in the Seoul metropolitan area as institutions to be relocated. The relocation of the executive and legislative branches is a given, but the bills differ somewhat in how they address relocating the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. They would also replace the existing Special Act on the Construction of the Multifunctional Administrative City and establish a separate organization or body to develop the administrative capital.

Attendees chant, "Enact the Special Act on the Administrative Capital by the End of the Year," at the launch ceremony of the Pan-National Committee for the Enactment of the Special Act on the Administrative Capital, held at Sejong City Hall last August. Yonhap News

The biggest point of contention is how to resolve the Constitutional Court’s 2004 ruling that the plan was unconstitutional. At the time, the Court ruled that a constitutional amendment was required for relocation, based on the customary constitutional principle that “the capital is Seoul.” Some argue that a constitutional amendment must come first, stipulating that “the administrative capital is Sejong” or that “the capital shall be determined by law.” Referring to comments made at a recent public hearing on the administrative capital, People Power Party lawmaker Kim Miae said, “The fact that seeking another ruling from the Constitutional Court was proposed at the hearing as one possible approach does not mean the issue of unconstitutionality has been resolved.”

Others counter that the Constitutional Court may not apply the same standards as before, given that many central government agencies have already moved to Sejong and the prevailing spirit of the times has changed since more than 20 years ago. A ruling-party lawmaker on the committee said, “Doesn’t Sejong City already exist as a reality, having been developed after government agencies moved there?” and expressed the view that the Constitutional Court’s 2004 ruling is no longer valid. In a review report prepared for a Subcommittee on Bills meeting in February this year, Kwak Hyeonjun, chief expert adviser to the National Assembly Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee, said it was necessary to examine whether the Constitutional Court’s ruling of unconstitutionality remains binding when reviewing the bills and whether the new bills constitute repeat legislation.

Although the issue has not yet come to the fore, if discussions gain momentum in the National Assembly, many challenges will need to be addressed, including opposition from the Seoul metropolitan area and other regions and the enormous financial burden. Trillions of won in public spending are expected to be needed to build infrastructure, including a new Presidential Office, the National Assembly plenary chamber, and headquarters for major government ministries. To fund this, the bills propose establishing a separate special account, making use of the former sites of relocated institutions, or drawing on or borrowing from the general account or funds.

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