헌법재판소에 의한 입법절차 통제

Article 111(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea regulates that the Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction over the competence disputes between state agencies, between state agencies and local governments, and between local governments. The article means that the competence disputes between state agencies is one of the competence disputes under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Article 62(1) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that the adjudication on competence dispute shall be classified as follows : 1. Adjudication on competence dispute between state agencies : Adjudication on competence disputes between the national assembly, the executive, ordinary courts and the national election commission. Despite the articles it was not explicit whether the competence dispute between an assembly member and chair of the National Assembly. The Constitutional Court in 1995 dismissed the petition on the competence dispute betweenan assembly member and chairman of the National Assembly for being outside its jurisdiction granted by the Constitution or the Constitutional Court Act on the ground that the chairman or a member of the National Assembly is only a componental entity constituting a state agency, the National Assembly. However, in 1997, the Constitutional Court departed from its precedent in a case of the same type, and asserted jurisdiction over a competence dispute between a member and chairman of the National Assembly on the ground that it qualifies as a competence dispute between state agencies under the Constitution. After that, the Constitutional Court confirmed the changed precedent. The Constitutional Court agreed that the competence disputes between chairman of the National Assembly and its members are not simply internal problems between the two constituents of the National Assembly but disputes between separate state agencies under the Constitution. There is no other means of resolving the conflict between chairman of the National Assembly and its members than competence disputes. In many cases of the competence disputes between chairman of the National Assembly and its members, the Constitutional Court agreed that the power to deliberate and vote on bills of the assembly members was infringed. But in those cases, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the bills were not invalid. Those decisions of the Constitutional Court were criticized because the bills which passed in the legislative process violating the power to deliberate and vote on bills of the assembly members and infringing the principle of due process shall be invalid.