판례평석: 국회의원의 심의표결권 침해에 대한 권한쟁의심판

Abstract

The media bill was passed on 22 July 2009. When the roll call votes were less than a half of the registered members, the vice-speaker put the bill on the second vote and passed the bill. Ninety congressmen in the opposite political party set forth the decision should be annulled. The constitutional court adjudicated on competence disputes by 6 to 3 that the right of deliberate and votes cast was infringed. However, 7 out of 9 constitutional court judges dismiss the request for invalidity of media law. I argue that the majority decision of the constitutional court had three critical flaws. First, the right of question and discussion was violated during the procedure to pass the bill. Second, the principle not to deliberate the same measure twice during the same session was not uphold. Thus, the right of deliberate and votes cast of the opposing party members infringed. Last, the violated legislation procedure could not result in the valid media law. The constitutional court decision on media law did not limit the date to amend the law and only stated that the national assembly is accountable for holding the legislation procedure. To that end, the constitutional court decision merely suggests that the national assembly would decide whether to reconsider the media law.