예산법률주의만이 유일한 해법인가?

The discourse surrounding the adoption of budgetary legalism in Korea has intensified, particularly with the proposition to implement an American-style framework aimed at enhancing the National Assembly's oversight capabilities over governmental operations. Central to this debate is the 2018 constitutional amendment proposal which seeks to preserve the government's exclusive right to propose budget bills and approve increases. Given that the budget inherently serves as both a national fiscal expenditure plan and an authorizing statute, impacting predominantly national agencies, the substantive distinctions between systems of budget legalism and non-legalism are ostensibly marginal with respect to budget execution and fiscal democratic processes. Moreover, the principles of budget legalism typically align more suitably with parliamentary systems, raising concerns regarding potential inflexibilities in budget management and the consequential inefficiencies that may emerge in synchronizing the budget with dynamic government policies. This study posits that the constitutional amendment advocating for budgetary legalism may not constitute the most effective solution for advancing fiscal accountability and governmental transparency. Instead, this study suggests that enhancing the existing non-legalistic structures could sufficiently meet the objectives intended by the amendment. Recognizing the complexities inherent in amending Korea's Constitution, the study advocates for a broader interpretation of Article 57, alongside a more precise definition of the respective powers and responsibilities of the National Assembly and the executive branch. Furthermore, the study underscores the necessity for meticulous consideration of alternatives that address budgetary modifications, fostering a dialogue on issues such as governmental consent, requests for reconsideration, and majority voting processes within the National Assembly. These measures could potentially enhance the democratic oversight of budget management without necessitating fundamental legal reforms. This approach not only respects the extant legislative framework but also promotes a more agile and responsive fiscal policy environment.