Is Parliamentary Immunity a License for Fake News?

In the past, Kim Ui-kyum, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, raised allegations of a "Cheongdam-dong drinking gathering" leading to controversy surrounding President Yoon Seok-yeol and Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon. However, when Representative Kim was not indicted based on parliamentary immunity, there was also backlash within the ruling party. In this situation, opinions advocating for the complete abolition of parliamentary immunity have emerged, asserting that the National Assembly now needs to establish rational criteria to prevent the abuse of this privilege.

 

In light of this, the National Assembly Legislative Research Service points out that in addition to long-term considerations for amending parliamentary immunity to limit it, it is also necessary for the legislature to refer to cases in major countries where the legislature holds members accountable for their actions and take appropriate measures.

 

The Seoul Seocho Police concluded that the "Cheongdam-dong drinking gathering" allegations were false after investigating, and transferred the accuser, Kang Jin-gu, the representative of the YouTube channel 'Citizen Journalism The Tamsa', to the prosecution. However, the case against Representative Kim was closed due to "insufficient grounds for prosecution." It was not transferred to the prosecution due to parliamentary immunity. The prosecution is currently considering whether to conduct a re-investigation of Representative Kim.

 

Last October, Representative Kim raised allegations of a Cheongdam-dong drinking gathering against a minister who attended the parliamentary audit of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee. At that time, the accusation was made public without undergoing fact-checking, and the recorded conversation of the accuser was revealed as is. The conversation included phrases like "Han Dong-hoon and Yoon Seok-yeol even came and drank and sang songs." However, when the accuser confessed that the report was false, the allegations were revealed as fake news. Despite this, Representative Kim stated, "If I could go back to that day, I would ask the same question again."

 

In response, the People Power Party expressed unanimous opposition. It is a common opinion among the public that if it were an ordinary citizen, they would not have been able to avoid punishment. Jang Ye-chan, the Youth Supreme Council Member of the People Power Party, criticized, "Although it has been acknowledged that Kim Ui-kyum damaged someone's reputation with low-quality fake news about the Cheongdam-dong drinking gathering, thanks to parliamentary immunity, he received a non-indictment decision. It's like granting a 'fake news license,' not even a license to kill like James Bond, to a member of the National Assembly."

 

Furthermore, the People Power Party aims to abolish parliamentary immunity. The Chief Policy Maker, Jang, stated, "Where in the world can you find such an outrageous privilege? I heard that Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, also advocated for the abolition of parliamentary immunity as a campaign promise for the presidential election. Now is the time to keep that promise," and raised his voice, saying, "The special privileges of lawmakers, established during the military regime, the immunity of members of the National Assembly, are being distorted and turned into a pardon for low-quality politics. Let's work together to push for the abolition of parliamentary immunity, regardless of conservative or progressive, ruling party or opposition, to expel low-quality politics."

 

In addition, Yoon Jae-ok, the Floor Leader of the People Power Party, officially proposed, "To create a trusted National Assembly by the people, there is one more issue that both the ruling and opposition parties need to address. It is the issue of fake news," and suggested, "It is time to seriously consider whether we should apply parliamentary immunity to acts of spreading false or fake news without clear evidence or confirmation of truth, with malicious intent to damage the honor or credit of individual citizens. Let's discuss the option of not applying parliamentary immunity in such cases."

 

According to Article 45 of the Constitution, members of the National Assembly have immunity for statements and votes made in the course of their duties in the National Assembly, and they are not held accountable for these outside of the National Assembly. This is a special provision to protect the independence and autonomous function of the legislative branch, allowing members to engage in legislative activities freely according to their conscience and beliefs. This right has been recognized since the enactment of the Constitution, and the requirement of being "in the course of their duties" was added during the 5th constitutional amendment in 1962. While the immunity of the National Assembly can be nullified by a plenary vote, the grounds for limiting parliamentary immunity are not specified in the Constitution, making it 'absolute' in nature.

 

How do major countries around the world grant parliamentary immunity to legislators? According to a research report published last month by the National Assembly Legislative Research Service titled 'Parliamentary Immunity of Members of the National Assembly: a Comparison and Issues in Korea and Abroad', the UK, where parliamentary immunity was first codified, formalized parliamentary immunity by stating, "The freedom of speech, debate, or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament." The United States and France also codify parliamentary immunity through their respective constitutions.

 

However, Germany and Japan have important differences in establishing parliamentary immunity. Germany attached a clause to the relevant provision, specifying that 'serious slander' is not exempted. The Supreme Court of Japan stated that since the discretion and autonomy granted to members of the National Assembly are recognized with the intention of faithfully performing their duties, acts that gratuitously state false facts and damage the honor or credit of individual citizens, unrelated to their duties, are not exempted.

 

In light of this, the National Assembly Legislative Research Service points out that in addition to long-term considerations for amending parliamentary immunity to limit it, it is also necessary for the legislature to refer to cases in major countries where the legislature holds members accountable for their actions and take appropriate measures. It is hoped that discussions will be held to establish rational criteria that prevent the abuse of parliamentary immunity while guaranteeing the freedom of expression of legislators and fulfilling the right of citizens to know.