South Koreaโs presidential office has declined to advance Judge Son Bong-giโs nomination to the Supreme Court and asked Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae to recommend a different candidate. The decision, announced Friday, is the first reported instance of a president rejecting a Supreme Court justice candidate put forward by the chief justice, turning a normally coordinated appointment process into a direct institutional dispute.
Son, a senior judge at the Daegu District Court, had been recommended to replace former Justice Noh Tae-ak. Instead of sending Sonโs appointment consent motion to the National Assembly, President Lee Jae-myungโs office returned the recommendation and asked Cho to make a new one. The immediate practical consequence is that the vacancy cannot move toward parliamentary approval until the nomination process is reset or the dispute is otherwise resolved.
The presidential office argues that the chief justiceโs power to recommend a justice cannot replace or neutralize the presidentโs constitutional appointment authority. Spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said the next recommendation should respect the candidates produced by the Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee and be made as quickly as possible. Reporting by Dong-A Ilbo said three other judges were among those recommended alongside Son, although the presidential office has not publicly identified which person it wants Cho to choose.
The request therefore does not necessarily send the process back to the beginning. The presidential office has pointed to the existing recommendation committeeโs list, suggesting that the immediate question is whether Cho will choose another person from that pool. What remains unsettled is whether the chief justice accepts the premise that a president can return his recommendation and require a substitute.
The appointment process has become a separation-of-powers argument
Cho is pushing back from the opposite institutional direction. In a written explanation for why he will not attend a National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Aug. 31, he argued that requiring the chief justice to testify about the exercise of his constitutional recommendation power would conflict with judicial independence and the separation of powers. He also said it would be inappropriate to publicly discuss details of an ongoing appointment process or individual candidates.
That leaves a dispute not simply over Sonโs qualifications but over how three institutions are supposed to share authority. The president needs a nomination that he is prepared to appoint, the chief justice is defending the independence of his recommendation power, and the National Assembly ultimately has a consent role. Opposition figures have already challenged the presidential move, while governing-party lawmakers have defended the request for a new candidate. The stakes are therefore broader than one judicial vacancy: an improvised solution could become a precedent for how future presidents and chief justices handle disagreement over Supreme Court appointments.
Choโs response will determine whether the process resets
Cho has said he is reviewing the matter and expects to announce an official position next week. That response is now the key next step. If he submits another candidate, the confrontation could move back into the ordinary appointment process. If he insists on the original recommendation or formally disputes the presidentโs authority to reject it, Korea could face a longer constitutional and political fight over a power-sharing arrangement that has rarely been tested this openly.