As South Korea approaches what may become the most consequential presidential election in its modern democratic history, two principal democratic institutions – the judiciary and the legislature – are accelerating toward a critical inflection point.
At the heart of this confrontation lies Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, whose ongoing legal entanglements have triggered an institutional contest between the imperatives of the rule of law and the legitimacy of an electoral mandate.
What began as a legal proceeding involving alleged violations of the Public Official Election Act has rapidly evolved into a broader institutional contest with long-term implications for South Korean democracy. With just weeks remaining before the June 3 national election, both the judiciary and the legislature appear determined to assert their respective domains and competing visions of democratic authority.
The result is an escalating struggle that may redefine the nation’s democratic foundations for decades to come.
Accelerated judicial process
The judiciary, notably the Supreme Court and Seoul High Court, has pursued Lee’s case with exceptional urgency. At issue are statements he made during a prior election campaign. Prosecutors charged him with violating the Public Official Election Act by knowingly disseminating false information – an offense that carries criminal liability under South Korean law.
After years of conflicting rulings in lower courts, the legal process took a dramatic turn in April 2025 when the Supreme Court overturned an appellate court’s acquittal. The case was remanded to the Seoul High Court with instructions to re-examine it under a presumption of guilt. Within hours of receiving the file, the High Court assigned the case to a criminal division, scheduled the first hearing for May 15, and issued a personal summons to Lee – an unusually expedited move aimed at accelerating proceedings.
Even the Supreme Court’s own timeline was extraordinary. The verdict was issued just 34 days after the appeal was accepted and only nine days after it was referred to the Grand Bench – a procedural velocity virtually unprecedented in the South Korean legal system.
Legal analysts view this swift action as judicial activism intended to ensure that voters are fully informed about the case ahead of the election, reinforcing institutional accountability amid political turbulence.
Legislative response
In parallel, the Democratic Party-led National Assembly has launched a series of legislative initiatives that, if enacted, would dramatically reshape the balance of power among South Korea’s democratic institutions.
On the same day the High Court announced Lee’s retrial, the Democratic Party introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Procedure Act. This amendment would suspend criminal proceedings against any presidential candidate once elected – effectively granting temporary immunity while in office.
At the same time, the party has proposed changes to the Court Organization Act to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 30. While publicly framed as a response to case backlogs and judicial inefficiency, critics argue it is a transparent attempt at court-packing – a way to shift the ideological balance of the judiciary in favor of the ruling bloc.
Most controversially, an amendment to the Constitutional Court Act has been proposed that would permit constitutional petitions against final court rulings. Currently, such decisions are immune from constitutional review – a safeguard meant to preserve judicial independence and finality.
Critics warn that if enacted, the amendment would open the door to retroactive legal challenges initiated for political reasons, eroding judicial impartiality. Legal observers are increasingly concerned about the lasting damage this could inflict on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
Taken together, these reforms would represent a sweeping redefinition of institutional power. Supporters argue they reflect necessary modernization of outdated systems. Detractors, however, warn they pose an existential threat to South Korea’s constitutional equilibrium.
Far from being reactive measures, these reforms appear to be part of a broader legislative effort to recalibrate the country’s governance architecture in anticipation of a political transition.
Geopolitical undercurrents and the strategic stakes
This constitutional face-off is playing out amid significant geopolitical flux in East Asia. Under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, South Korea has aligned closely with the US and Japan, deepening trilateral defense ties and embracing the broader US Indo-Pacific strategy.
Yoon’s foreign policy has emphasized deterrence against North Korea and strategic decoupling from China.
Lee Jae-myung, by contrast, is widely viewed as favoring a pragmatic foreign policy reset. He has advocated diplomatic engagement with North Korea, greater economic cooperation with China and Russia, and a more balanced posture between Washington and Beijing.
Should he win the presidency, South Korea’s foreign policy could pivot toward a multipolar alignment – reshaping its Indo-Pacific positioning and accelerating its outreach toward Eurasia.
This potential reorientation is of keen interest to Korean strategists and global observers alike, as it could redefine Korea’s international standing amid rapidly shifting geopolitical dynamics in the region.
In that light, the judiciary’s urgency and the legislature’s reformist drive are no longer seen as mere procedural moves, but as expressions of deeper ideological alignments. The judiciary, rooted in legal conservatism, seeks to preserve continuity and institutional stability. The legislature, led by progressive forces, is pushing for structural transformation in response to shifting geopolitical and domestic realities.
Democratic divergence: rule of law vs. rule by mandate
The unprecedented speed of institutional activity underscores a profound philosophical divergence over how democracy should function. The judiciary champions procedural legality and institutional restraint, rooted in constitutionalism and separation of powers. The legislature, in contrast, argues that true democratic legitimacy arises from the electoral mandate – and that lawmakers have a moral duty to reshape institutions in accordance with the will of the people.
Lee Jae-myung’s candidacy embodies this divide. He presents himself as an agent of change – socially progressive, economically redistributive and diplomatically balanced. His critics describe him as a populist cloaked in technocratic reform, warning that his proposed structural changes could concentrate power and destabilize institutional checks and balances. In this view, the judiciary’s rapid intervention is seen as a safeguard against democratic erosion.
Meanwhile, South Korean voters are caught in the middle of this institutional contest. One segment of the electorate embraces systemic reform in response to growing inequality and elite inertia. Another warns that rushing changes under the banner of progress may weaken the very institutions that protect democracy. The increasingly polarized discourse is not just about Lee’s case – it is about the future of governance itself.
A nation at the crossroads
South Korea is now undergoing a historic test of democratic resilience. The judiciary’s attempt to ensure legal clarity before the vote and the legislature’s drive to assert electoral legitimacy are not simply procedural decisions – they represent opposing visions of democracy. Both institutions are acting in defense of democratic principles, but through fundamentally divergent frameworks.
The consequences of this institutional divergence will echo long after June 3. What is at stake is not just a presidential election but the integrity of South Korea’s legal framework, its strategic orientation and its standing in the world.
Whether the country emerges stronger or more divided will depend not only on who wins the presidency but on how well its institutions endure and adapt under pressure.
As the world watches, South Korea’s election has become more than a democratic milestone. It is a referendum on the meaning of power, legitimacy and the future direction of a nation navigating a rapidly shifting global order.
