Competence Dispute between the National Assembly Members and the National Assembly Speaker

[21-2(B) KCCR 14, 2009Hun-Ra8 · 9 · 10 (consolidated), October29, 2009]

Background of the Case

(1) The plaintiffs are the National Assembly members belonging to the opposition party, including Democratic Party, and the respondents are the Speaker and the Vice-Speaker (hereinafter, the "Speaker", the "Vice-Speaker" respectively).

(2) Respondent, the Speaker, announced to submit legislative bills related to the press, including the proposed partial revisions to the Broadcasting Act, which had proceeded with difficulties in the negotiation between the ruling party and the opposition party, ex officio to a plenary session at approximately 11:00 on July 22, 2009. At 15:35 on the same day, the other respondent, Vice-Speaker, convened the 283rd extraordinary session, according to the delegation of the Speaker that could not enter into the assembly hall due to the blockade of plaintiffs.

At 15:37 on the same day, the Vice-Speaker introduced the proposed revisions to the Act on the Freedom of Newspapers, etc. and Guarantee of their Functions (hereinafter, "the Newspaper Bill"), the said partial revised Broadcasting Act, and the proposed partial revisions to the Act on Internet Multimedia Broadcasting Business (hereinafter, "the Multimedia Bill") together. He also declared to replace the assessment report and proposal enunciation with terminal assembly records and materials, without interpellations and debates.

(3) With regard to the Newspaper Bill that was proposed by Assemblyman Kang, Seung-kyu and other 168 assemblymen of the Grand National Party, it was passed by 152 approval votes, 0 opposition votes, and 10 abstention votes, out of the enrollment of 294 members and presence of 162 members of the National Assembly. Accordingly, the Vice-Speaker proclaimed the passage of the

Newspaper Bill.

(4) The Vice-Speaker proceeded to take a vote on the partial revised Broadcasting Act also proposed by Assemblyman Kang, Seung-kyu and 168 assemblymen of the Grand National Party. After a few minutes, he declared to "close the vote", and the vote-closing button was pressed. At that time, the scoreboard of electronic vote showed 142 approval votes, 0 opposite votes, and 3 abstention votes, out of the enrollment of 294 members and presence of 145 members of the National Assembly.

The Vice-Speaker referred the said Broadcasting Act to a revote, saying that 'the bill proposed by Kang, Seung-kyu and other 168 assemblymen shall be voted again', and 'it will be revoted because of the failure of vote due to the lack of presence quorum'. When the end of vote was declared, and the voting board showed 150 approval votes, 0 opposite votes, and 3 abstention votes, out of the enrollment of 294 members and presence of 153 members of the National Assembly, the Vice-Speaker announced the passage of the bill of the said Broadcasting Act (hereinafter, "the Broadcasting Bill").

(5) The vote on the Multimedia Bill was followed. Because 161 approval votes, 0 opposite votes, and 0 abstention votes out of the presence of 161 members of the National Assembly were appeared as the voting result, the Vice-Speaker announced its passage. He also introduced the proposed partial revisions to the Financial Holding Companies Act (hereinafter, the "Corporation Bill") that was proposed by Park, Jong-hee and other 168 assemblymen, around 16:12 on the same day. The Corporation Bill was put to a vote that resulted in 162 approval votes and 3 abstention votes out of the presence of 145 members of the National Assembly. The bill was announced for its passage, and the session adjourned around 16:16 on the same day.

(6) On the day, the chair of the Assembly Hall had been surrounded by guards and assemblymen of the Grand National Party to prevent some assemblymen of the opposition party, such as Democratic Party, from occupying the chair. Assemblymen belonging to the opposition party and assemblymen belonging to the Grand

National Party were tussling with one another due to the opposition party members' attempt to occupy the platform with a shout of 'proxy vote to be void'.

(7) The Newspaper Bill, Broadcasting Bill, Nespaper Bill and Corporation Bill (hereinafter, the "Instant Bills") were sent to the Government on July 27, 2009. After the presentation to State Council on July 28, 2009, these bills were promulgated on July 31, 2009.

(8) Plaintiffs filed this competence dispute adjudications seeking to declaratory judgment of infringement on their rights and nullity of the promulgation of the Instant Bills against Speaker and Vice Speaker, arguing that the Respondent Vice-Speaker violated the 'principle not to deliberate the same measure twice during the same session' by putting the said Broadcasting Act to the revote at the assembly meeting of July 22, 2009, and infringed their' rights to review and vote on the bills that are specified by the Constitution and the National Assembly Act by omitting the assessment report, proposal enunciation, interpellations, and debates in reviewing and voting the Instant Bills, by proclaiming the passages of the Instant Bills despite the issue of proxy vote was raised out of the voting process of the Newspaper Bill.

Subject Matter of Review

Subject matter of this case is whether the respondent Vice Speaker's announcement of the passage of the Instant Bills in the 2nd plenary meeting of the 283rd extraordinary session convened around 15:35 on July 22, 2009. infringes the plaintiff's right to review and vote on bills and whether the said announcement of the passage of the Instant Bills is void.

Summary of the Decision

The Constitutional Court decided that the plaintiffs' rights to review and vote on the Instant Bills were infringed by the declaration of

passages, by a 7 to 2 vote with regard to the Newspaper Bill and by a 6 to 3 vote with regard to the Broadcasting Bill, that was occurred in the 2nd assembly meeting of the 283rd extraordinary session convened around 15:35 on July 22, 2009. However, the Court denied the claim to seek the declaratory judgment of annulment of the announcement of passage by a 6 to 3 vote with regard to the Newspaper Bill and by a 7 to 2 vote with regard to the Broadcasting Bill.

Regarding the passage announcement of the Multimedia Bill and the Corporation Bill in the assembly meeting, the Court denied the claim to seek the declaratory judgment of infringement on the rights in a 5 to 4 vote.

The reasons are followed as below:

1. Justiciability in Competence Dispute against the Vice-Speaker

The competence dispute should be filed against the Speaker that is authorized to introduce bills and proclaim the passages because the legally competent institution that caused dispositions or inactions can be a respondent of competence dispute. Despite the Vice-Speaker acting on behalf of the Speaker can declare the passage of bills (Article 12 Section 1 of the National Assembly Act), he is not legally liable for the declaration of the passage of bills. Therefore, the dispute against the Vice Speaker in this case does not satisfy justiciability requirements because it was brought against a person who cannot be a respondent (hereinafter, 'respondent' means the Vice-Speaker acting on behalf of the 'Respondent Speaker').

A. Concurring Opinion of Justice Cho Dae-hyen

The issue of this case is the entire process of the review and vote of the National Assembly. In this case, the dispute should be brought against the National Assembly Speaker who represents the National Assembly, not the Vice-Speaker.

2. A. Whether it is possible to waiver of the right to review and vote on bills

The right to review and vote on bills of assemblymen should not be waived because it is the fundamental authority to carry out the legislative activities that are the essential function of the National Assembly, which is the national institution elected by the People.

B. Justiciability of competence dispute filed by assemblymen who disturbed the meeting

This competence dispute case has the nature of the public dispute to protect the competence order under the Constitution and the decision making system of the National Assembly. Therefore, this dispute would not be injusticiable due to the abuse of the right to bring an action in a court, despite some of the plaintiffs disturbed the respondent's presiding of the meeting and interfered the voting of other assemblymen, while attempting to accomplish their political intentions.

(1) Partial Dissenting Opinion of Justice Lee Dong-heub

Some of the plaintiffs had not exercised their rights to review and vote on the bills despite they could have exercised the rights. Rather, they actively disturbed the respondent's presiding and other assemblymen's rights to review and vote on the bills, with the intent to interfere entirely. Therefore, the plaintiffs do not satisfy the justiciable interest as the pre-requisite of competence dispute, and therefore this part of this dispute should be dismissed.

3. Whether the Passage Announcement of the Newspaper Bill Infringed on the Rights of Review and Vote on the Bills of the National Assembly Members

A. Illegality of the process of enunciation of the proposal

(1) Opinion of Legality of Justice Lee Kang-kook, Lee Kong-hyun, and Cho Dae-hyen

The enunciation of proposals descried in the National Assembly Act presumed that the National Assembly members that participate in the deliberation and voting on bills should know the intents and contents of the proposed bills. Because the intents and contents of the Newspaper Bill was reasonably expected to be known to the National Assembly members at the time of deliberating and voting on the bill, the proposal regarding the Newspaper Bill would be presumed to be explained. Therefore, there had been no infringement on the plaintiffs' rights to review and vote on the bills, violating Article 93 of the National Assembly Act that prescribed the explanation of proposal.

(2) Opinion of Legality of Justice Min Hyeong-ki, Lee Dong-heub, and Mok Young-joon

The procedural requirement was not satisfied because the Newspaper Bill was input only in the electronic deliberation system, not in the session progress system at the time of the declaration of the opining of the vote on the bill. However, the plaintiffs could understand the contents of the Newspaper Bill through the electronic deliberation system, and the proposal of the bill was input in the meeting progress system before the voting was actually opened. Under the extremely disorderly circumstances, it would be within the discretion of the right to preside deliberation of the Speaker that the respondent preceded to the voting process under the presumption of the validity of the above explanation of the proposal. Therefore, the plaintiffs' rights to review and vote on the bill under Article 93 of the National Assembly Act were not violated.

(3) Opinion of Illegality of Justice Kim Hee-ok, Kim Jong-dae, and Song Doo-hwan

The proposal of the bill should be explained in a simple way that should be equivalent to the direct explanation of a proposer if a general 'oral explanation' is altered, before proceeding to the deliberation and voting because the explanation is the essential condition of the decision for interpellations, deliberations, and votes. In this case, the Newspaper Bill was input into the meeting progress

system about 30 seconds earlier before the actual opinion of the vote upon the declaration of voting. It does not satisfy the 'explanation of the proposal' specified by the National Assembly Act. In other words, the respondent made an error by declaring to open the vote on the bill that had not been considered by the committee, without the explanation of the proposer. Therefore, the provision of article 93 of the National Assembly Act was violated, infringing on the plaintiffs' rights to review and vote on the bills.

B. Illegality of the Process of Interpellation and Debate

(1) Opinion of Illegality of Justice Lee Kang-kook, Cho Dae-hyen, Kim Hee-ok, Song Doo-hwan

The deliberation process is the essential part of the legislative proceeding under the parliamentarism. Article 93 of the National Assembly Act stipulates that the deliberation is required in the legislative proceeding unless special occasions, and especially for the bill that was not considered by the committee, interpellations and deliberations should not be omitted in the decision at the meeting, securing the debate process on the bill.

The respondent introduced the Newspaper Bill and other bills en bloc, and declared to open the vote on the Newspaper Bill that was not reviewed by the committee, following the announcement to omit the process of interpellation and deliberation. After about 11 minutes from the declaration of vote, the Newspaper Bill was input in the meeting progress system, and then after about 30 seconds, the vote poll was open. Under these circumstances of the session, it was literally impossible for the plaintiffs to prepare to request for interpellation and deliberation before the declaration for voting. In addition, Article 110 Section 2 of the National Assembly Act does not allow interpellation and deliberation after the declaration for voting, therefore, the opportunity of interpellation and deliberation was deprived de facto by the respondent's declaration for voting without the prior presentation of the bill.

With these circumstances, the plaintiffs were not guaranteed the opportunity to request to deliberate on the Newspaper Bill in prior.

Therefore, the respondent's session presiding that omitted the process of interpellation and deliberation violated Article 93 of the National Assembly Act, infringing on the plaintiffs' rights to review and vote on the bills.

(2) Opinion of Illegality by Justice Kim Jong-dae and Lee Dong-heub

In the session, the Speaker took a vote on the bill that was directly introduced to the assembly session without the consideration by the committee, omitting the process of interpellation and deliberation without checking or mentioning the request of interpellation and deliberation. Such presiding of the session deprived the plaintiffs of the opportunity to deliberate on the bill, beyond the reasonable discretion of the presiding authority of the Speaker, which is not justified. Therefore, the plaintiffs' rights to review and vote on the bills were infringed.

(3) Opinion of Legality of Justice Lee Kong-hyun, Min Hyeong-ki, Mok Young-joon

It is the rule that the Speaker should preside over the process of interpellation and deliberation after confirming whether there are interpellations, proceeding to the deliberation after checking there are no interpellation requests and proceeding to the vote after checking there are no deliberation requests. However, if there are no requests, interpellation or deliberation may be omitted.

The respondent declared to vote without the interpellation and deliberation, not confirming whether there are requests for interpellation or deliberation on the Newspaper Bill, under the presumption that there are no interpellations or deliberations because of the plaintiff's disturbance at the session where the session could not be proceeded ordinarily. Considering these circumstances and autonomy granted for the National Assembly, the respondent had not committed any clear error, violating the plaintiffs' rights to review and vote on the bills.

C. Whether the Freedom and Fairness of Voting Was Infringed, Whether the Infringement Affected the Fairness of the Vote Result, If Any, and Whether the Principle of Majority Was Violated in the Voting Process

(1) Opinion of Illegality of Justice Lee Kang-kook, Lee Kong-hyun, Cho Dae-hyen, Kim Hee-ok, Song Doo-hwan

The majority rule, described by Article 49 of the Constitution, assumes that it can secure the fairness and legitimacy of the legislative process by the National Assembly. The right to vote, granted for the National Assembly members who consist of the National Assembly, is the fundamental element of the right of legislation of the National Assembly, which confirms the final decision of the National Assembly through the exercise and confirmation of the rights of vote of all assemblymen. Therefore, if the freedom and fairness of voting are infringed and the infringement affects the legitimacy of the voting result, such voting process violates the majority rule specified by Article 49 of the Constitution and Article 109 of the National Assembly Act and infringes on the rights to vote on the bills of the National Assembly members.

Because of the disordered circumstances of the session at the time of voting on the Newspaper Bill and the blind point of the current electronic voting system, the respondent could not establish the minimum order for the voting process, and could not take any action to block illegal votes and vote disturbances. As a result, the freedom and justice of voting on the Newspaper Bill was significantly infringed by abnormal voting during the voting process of the Newspaper Bill, such as default voting by the unauthorized, illegal conducts doubted as unauthorized or proxy vote, and the disturbance against voting.

The circumstances at the time of voting on the Newspaper Bill and the degree and frequency of the voting conducts that are doubted as illegal suggest that the substantial disorder and unfairness during the voting process may affect the legitimacy of the voting result that reflects the illegal voting occurred in the extremely disordered circumstances and votes which cannot be reasonably classified whether it is legitimate or not.

Therefore, the declaration of passage of the Newspaper Bill infringed on the rights to vote on the bills of the plaintiffs, violating Article 49 of the Constitution and Article 109 of the National Assembly Act.

(2) Opinion of Legality by Justice Min Hyeong-ki, Lee Dong-heub, and Mok Young-joon

In order to prove that the respondent's declaration of passage of the Newspaper Bill infringed on the plaintiffs' rights to vote on the bill, the voting on the Newspaper Bill should be proceeded under the extremely disordered circumstances, and abnormal voting conducts should affect the voting result and infringe the voting value of the plaintiffs. However, the evidence presented in this case is not sufficient to prove the infringement on the plaintiffs' rights to vote on the bills.

(3) Opinion of Legality by Justice Kim Jong-dae

The Constitutional Court that respects the autonomy of the National Assembly should rely on the records of the session, unless there are exceptional reasons, in finding the facts of the session presiding with regard to the Speaker's declaration of passage of the bill. Therefore, unless the unauthorized or proxy vote, alleged by the plaintiffs, is recorded in the session records and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Court should assume that the session of the National Assembly had been duly progressed.

4. Whether the Declaration of Passage of the Broadcasting Bill Infringed on the Rights to Review and Vote on the Bills of Members of the National Assembly

A. The Illegality of the Process of Enunciation of the Proposal

After the Broadcasting Bill was input in the session progress system, the voting on the bill was declared, and such condition was maintained. Therefore, the enunciation of the proposal, required by the

National Assembly Act, could be assumed.

B. The Illegality of the Process of Interpellation and Debate

(1) Opinion of Legality of Justice Lee Kang-kook, Lee Kong-hyun, Kim Hee-ok, Min Hyeong-ki, and Mok Young-joon

With regard to the Broadcasting Bill, the plaintiffs had the sufficient opportunities to request the interpellation or debate, before the passage of the bill was declared. Therefore, it is assumed that there had been no requests of interpellation or debate and the decision of the respondent who progressed the session should be respected, if such requests were not clearly filed.

In addition, because the normal session progress was impossible at the time of this case, it would not violate Article 93 of the National Assembly Act that the respondent did not actively took the floor to confirm whether there are no requests of interpellation and debate prior to the voting on the bills.

(2) Opinion of Illegality of Justice Cho Dae-hyen and Song Doo-hwan

The substantial guarantee of the opportunity of interpellation and debate consists of the fundamental element of the right to review and vote on the bill, deriving from the principle of parliamentary democracy.

With regard to the Broadcasting Bill, the plaintiffs were not provided the time to prepare the request of interpellation or debate and, as a matter of fact, could not request to interpellate and debate the bill that should have been fully figured because it was not checked whether there are requests of interpellation and debate or not. Therefore, it can be presumed that the plaintiffs were not provided the opportunity of interpellation and debate.

The declaration of omitting interpellation and debate, due to the disorder of the session, by the respondent who are not authorized to omit the interpellation and debate at his will is beyond the limit of autonomy in session progress because such declaration, regardless of

its validity, may make interpellation and debate unattainable.

(3) Opinion of Illegality by Justice Kim Jong-dae and Lee Dong-heub

Same as the opinion with regard to the Newspaper Bill

C. Whether the 'principle not to deliberate the same measure twice during the same session' was violated

(1) Opinion of Illegality by Justice Cho Dae-hyen, Kim Jong-dae, Min Hyeong-ki, Mok Young-joon, and Song Doo-hwan

Article 49 of the Constitution and Article 109 of the National Assembly Act stipulates the attendance quorum and approval quorum for the passage, in row. According to these provisions, 'the attendance of a majority of all the assemblymen on the register' is not distinguished in its nature of the provision and the effect of the deficit from 'the concurrent vote of a majority of the assemblymen present'.

If an assemblyperson objects to a certain bill, such opposition can be expressed through either the voting against the bill at the session or being absent from the session. Therefore, there are no reasons to distinguish 'the attendance of a majority of all the assemblymen on the register' from 'the concurrent vote of a majority of the assemblymen present' in their meanings and effects regarding the legislative decision.

In the case of electronic voting, the vote proceeding is closed in substance when the voting result is aggregated with the Speaker's declaration of closing vote. Therefore, a bill would be rejected if the aggregated voting result shows either the approval less than a half of the attended assemblymen or the attendance less than a half of the enrolled assemblymen.

Because the first vote on the Broadcasting Bill was closed without the attendance of a majority of all the assemblymen on the register, the Bill should be assumed as being rejected by the legislative decision. Therefore, it would infringe on the rights to vote of the

plaintiffs in violation of the the 'principle not to deliberate the same measure twice during the same session' (Article 92 of the National Assembly Act) that the respondent put to a revote, ignoring the above result, and declared the passage of the bill according to the result of the following revote.

(2) Opinion of Legality of Justice Lee Kang-kook, Lee Kong-hyun, Kim Hee-ok and Lee Dong-heub

The voting quorum of 'the attendance of a majority of all the assemblymen on the register' described by Article 49 of the Constitution and Article 109 of the National Assembly Act regards the voting prerequisite for the valid legislative decision, which should be distinguished, in its legal nature, from the 'concurrent vote of a majority of the assemblymen present' that declared the principle of majority regarding the decision making method. Therefore, the legislative action that lacks the voting quorum would not be valid.

It is the practice of the National Assembly as well as the legal principle implied by the comparative law study that voting quorum is regarded as the prerequisite of the valid legislative decision. Otherwise, the voting may be possible only with the presence of a few members, and such voting would be automatically rejected even without aggregating the result, thereby violating the principle of representative democracy.

The voting on the Broadcasting Bill was closed with the lack of the voting quorum with regard to the requirement of the majority attendance out of the enrolled members, therefore, the effect of the legislative decision on the bill would not be valid. Accordingly, it would not be the violation of the 'principle not to deliberate the same measure twice during the same session' for the respondent to declare the passage of the Broadcasting Bill according to the result of the revote.

5. Whether the Declaration of Passage of the Multimedia Bill and Corporation Bill Infringed on the Right to Review and Vote of the National Assembly Members

A. Enunciation of the Proposal and Proceeding of Interpellation and Debate

Same as the judgment of the above Broadcasting Bill (the part of 4. A. & B.)

B. Whether the revision to the Corporation Bill falls into the revision to a bill prescribed in Article 95 of the National Assembly Act

The National Assembly Act does not limit the scope of the revision to a bill, but it stipulates that revision means the reflection of some ideas to the original bill by adding, deleting, or changing. Therefore, it would be the concurrence for revision under the National Assembly Act unless the revision altered the original intent and changed to the different meanings.

6. Whether the claim to seek the declaratory judgment of annulment of the announcement of passage of the Nespaper Bill is upheld

A. Opinion of Denial of Justice Min Hyeong-ki and Mok Young-joon

Because the declaration of passage of the Newspaper Bill did not infringe the rights to review and vote of the plaintiffs, the the claim to seek the declaratory judgment of annulment of above announcement, which should have infringed the plaintiffs' rights to review and vote on the bills, does not have standing grounds.

B. Opinion of Denial of Justice Lee Kang-kook and Lee Kong-hyun

If a competence dispute reveals unconstitutional or illegal conditions, the Constitutional Court should respect the autonomy of the plaintiffs in eliminating such conditions. Therefore, the Court would decide the effects of a disposition according to its discretion in deciding the validity or legitimacy only if there are exceptional circumstances that require the constitutional commitment to recover the order of power.

On the ground of the respect for the autonomy of the National Assembly with regard to the legislative power, the Constitutional Court confirms the infringement of the rights in this case. However, the Court leave the correction issue of unconstitutional or illegal conditions occurred by the infringement to the respondent.

C. Opinion of Denial of Justice Kim Jong-dae

As long as the respondent's declaration of passage is not the administrative disposition that can be disputed in litigation seeking void or nullity, the Constitutional Court can have the jurisdiction to confirm the infringement of the plaintiff's rights to review and vote by the respondent in this competence dispute that occurred dispute between the National Assembly Members and the National Assembly Speaker with regard to the legislative decision process. However, the post action following the declaration of passage of the bill would belong to the jurisdiction of the National Assembly that is granted the autonomy in the legislative decision.

D. Opinion of Denial by Justice Lee Dong-heub

The validity of the declaration of passage of the bill, in this case, would be determined by whether there is an error that clearly violated the provisions of the Constitution regarding the legislative process.

In this case, the Newspaper Bill was passed by the concurrence of overwhelming majority out of the presented members. Therefore, even though the respondent's progress regarding interpellation and debate violated the legislative proceeding specified by Article 93 of the National Assembly Act during the legislative deliberation process, the declaration of passage would not be void because it did not clearly violated the provisions of the Constitution, such as the majority rule (Article 49 of the Constitution) and the rule of open session (Article 50 of the Constitution).

E. Opinion of Uphold of Justice Cho Dae-hyen and Song Doo-hwan

The Newspaper Bill does not satisfy the substantial requirements of

the representative system that regards the voting of the National Assembly as the will of the people because it was put to a vote without the enunciation of proposal, interpellation, or debate that should not be omitted at the session of the National Assembly despite it was not reviewed by the Committee. Therefore, the voting of the National Assembly regarding the Newspaper Bill would be not regarded as the will of people, thereby being void. In addition to the process of interpellation and debate that should not be omitted, there are fairness issues of the voting process and the fidelity issue of the voting result in the case of the Newspaper Bill. These issues, being considered together, would consist of the significant ground to be void.

F. Opinion of Uphold by Justice Kim Hee-ok

The competence dispute system intends the separation of powers through the control of the national authority, development of democracy in substance through the protection of minority, preservation of the Constitutional order, and protection of authority of competent national agencies. Article 61 Section 2 and Article 66 Sections 1 & 2 of the Constitutional Court Act also imply that the competence dispute has the both nature of objective resolution for the constitutional order and the subjective resolution for the national agencies. Therefore, the claim to seek the declaratory judgment of annulment of the announcement of the Newspaper Bill should be upheld because the respondent's declaration of passage of the Newspaper Bill had been found to be a violation of the Constitution and the National Assembly Act.

7. Whether the claim to seek the declaratory judgment of annulment of the announcement of passage of the Broadcasting Bill is upheld

A. Opinion of Denial of Justice Lee Kang-kook, Lee Kong-hyun, and Kim Hee-ok

As reviewed in above, because the declaration of passage of the Broadcasting Bill did not infringe on the plaintiffs' rights to review

and vote on the bills, the instant declaration does not have grounds to stand for the request to confirm the invalidity that requires the infringement of the plaintiffs' rights.

B. Opinion of Denial by Justice Min Hyeong-ki, Lee Dong-heub, and Mok Young-joon

Article 66 of the Constitutional Court Act states that it is within the discretion of the Constitutional Court whether it confirms the infringement of competence only, or extends to confirm the nullification or validity of a disposition which becomes the cause of action. For the fundamental principles of the legislative process of the National Assembly, our Constitution establishes the 'Majority Rule' in Article 49 and the 'Open Session Rule' in Article 50. Accordingly, the effect of the declaration of passage of the bill would depend on whether there are clear errors to violate the Constitution during the legislative process.

Despite the declaration of passage of the Broadcasting Bill by the respondent violates the National Assembly Act, thereby infringing on the rights to review and vote of the plaintiffs, the error would not sufficient to hold the declaration of passage as null or void.

C. Opinion of Denial of Justice Kim Jong-dae

With the same reasons specified in the the claim to seek the declaratory judgment of annulment of the announcement of passage of the Newspaper Bill, this part of this dispute should be denied.

D. Opinion of Uphold of Justice Cho Dae-hyen and Song Doo-hwan

With regard to the Broadcasting Bill, there are significant procedural errors that infringed on the rights to review and vote on the bills by omitting the process of interpellation and debate. Therefore, the declaration of passage would be void, considering the violation of Article 92 (the rejected bill rule) of the National Assembly Act together.