The Role of Rapporteur Judges in the Korean Constitutional Adjudication System

Abstract

The Constitutional Court of Korea, endowed with extensive authority and enjoying substantial support from the public, handles a wide range of cases. Since it is nearly impossible for the small group of nine Justices to conduct in-depth investigations and research for each case, the Constitutional Court of Korea employs judicial assistants known as “Rapporteur Judges”. Rapporteur Judges are public officials who are specially appointed to conduct investigations and legal research related to case deliberations and judgments under the direction of the Court’s president. Although the Rapporteur Judge system was established when the Court was founded, initially only a few individuals served as Rapporteur Judges. However, the Constitutional Court Act and internal regulations have undergone several reforms to increase the number of employed Rapporteur Judges and provide long-term career prospects. As a result, the current Rapporteur Judge system of the Constitutional Court of Korea operates in a unique manner, granting individual Rapporteur Judges a certain level of independence in their tasks. Rapporteur Judges have become more permanent positions, and their recruitment is decided collaboratively with the involvement of all the Justices and Senior Rapporteur Judges. Furthermore, Rapporteur Judges are not exclusively assigned to a specific Justice and have the obligation and authority to present their independent conclusions on cases to the Justices, even if they differ from the Justice’s perspective. While it is difficult to determine the ideal judicial assistant system, the current Korean Rapporteur Judge system offers distinct advantages that contribute to the Court’s performance, as well as challenges. The job security, the collaborative reporting process, and the guarantee of independence allow the Rapporteur Judges to develop their expertise, which contributes greatly to the constitutional adjudication progress. Yet the inherent limitation of the position prevents them from taking a more proactive role and the bureaucratic nature of the organization discourages Justices from conveying their own views on the decisions. The case of the Korean experience exemplifies that the Justices and the president of the Constitutional Court shall count, in particular, on the collaboration with their assistants to carry out their institutional duties, and more extensive research must be carried out on the role of the Rapporteur Judges, as they play a crucial part in constitutional adjudication and fundamental right protection.