Passing the Revised Bill of the National Government Organization Act Case

[18-1(A) KCCR 82, 2006Hun-Ra6, February 23, 2006]

Held, in a competence dispute over whether the Respondent, the Speaker of National Assembly infringed the Petitioners' power to deliberate and vote on the bills by passing the revised bill of the National Government Organization Act, providing the establishment of Defense Acquisition Program Administration, along with the original bill introducing a dual-deputy-minister system, the elevation of Korea National Statistical Office and Korea Meteorological Administration to organizations in which deputy ministers sit as heads, the Constitutional Court dismissed the case.

Background of the Case

On March 24, 2005, the Korean government brought a bill of the National Government Organization Act before National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. The contents of such bill included the introduction of dual-deputy-minister system, the elevation of Korea National Statistical Office & Korea Meteorological Administration to organizations in which deputy ministers sit as heads and the establishment of Defense Acquisition Program as well as the name change for Ministry of Construction & Transportation to Ministry of National Geography & Transportation. Government Administration & Home Affairs Committee in National Assembly of Republic of Korea reviewed the bill along with other bills which were already submitted, passed the alternative version of bill which includes the introduction of dual-deputy-minister system, the elevation of Korea National Statistical Office & Korea Meteorological Administration to organizations in which deputy ministers sit as heads and referred the bill to a plenary session of the National Assembly. On June 30, 2007, in the 8th full-dress meeting of 254th Extraordinary Session, regarding a part of reform bill of the National Government Organization Act above, in the name of 33 lawmakers from Our

Open Party and Democratic Labor Party, a revised bill including the establishment of Defense Acquisition Program was submitted. The Speaker passed the revised bill by a majority vote and he announced the passage of the original version of the bill of the National Government Organization Act along with the revised one. The Petitioners from the Grand National Party claimed that the Speaker infringed their power to deliberate and vote on the bills by announcing the passage of the bill which deviated from the extent of revision allowed by the National Assembly Act. Furthermore, the Petitioners, arguing that the announcement of passage of such bill is invalid because of its unconstitutionality, requested to the Constitutional Court an adjudication on competence dispute.

Summary of the Decision

The Constitutional Court has held, in 6 : 3 decision, dismissed the request. The summary of the grounds for the Court's decision is stated in the following paragraphs.

1. Majority Opinion of Six Justices

Considering (1) there is no restriction in the National Assembly Act in terms of the extent of revising bills referred to a plenary session of the National Assembly, (2) the National Assembly Act provides that the revision means adding a different idea to the original, which includes an addition, a deletion and a modification of the original, as long as the original opinion of the original remains intact, the revision would be qualified as a revised bill allowed by the National Assembly Act.

Likewise, if we can broadly construe the meaning of revision provided in Article 95 of the National Assembly Act, the fact that the Respondent passed the revised version would not be a clear violation of the Law. Furthermore, according to a stenographic record of the National Assembly, the Respondent, upon the assumption that without a clear rule on the proceedings the Respondent is supposed to follow the precedents, and upon the report from the National Assembly Secretariat that from the outset of the 17th National Assembly to June 29, 2005, 10 out of 12 revised bills were passed with the contents the original version did not have. Also, reviewing all the bills mentioned on the report from the National Assembly Secretariat, it is quite certain that the bills with newly made provisions were passed as revised bills without any

particular problem. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondents passed the bill at issue in this case while making a determination on the extent of revised bill with ex parte interpretation of the National Assembly Act.

2. Dissenting Opinion of Three Justices

The bill at issue in this case, because it is a separate one departing from the original version, is not the revised bill pursuant to the National Assembly Act. The original bill included (1) the introduction of dual-deputy-minister system for Ministry of Finance and Economy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (2) the elevation of Korea National Statistical Office and Korea Meteorological Administration to organizations in which deputy ministers sit as heads. Therefore, although in formality the bill at issue in this case was submitted as a revised bill, without any similarity to the original bill in terms of contents, the bill at issue in this case is a separate one. Even if the National Assembly passed the bill at issue, it only shows that the members of the National Assembly expressed their opinion either in the affirmative or in the negative. The members never expressed any view on the introduction of dual-deputy-minister system and the elevation of some governmental organizations to the vice-minister class which was provided in the original bill. Therefore, since the fact that the revised bill was passed cannot be translated into the passage of the original bill, additional proceeding is necessary to announce the passage of the original bill.