The Constitutional Court heard arguments on Monday regarding whether it was legitimate for parliament to request adjudication, in the absence of a plenary vote, of acting President Choi Sang-mok’s decision to defer the appointment of Constitutional Court Justice nominee Ma Eun-hyuk.

At the second oral argument hearing, the acting president’s legal team said an adjudication request alleging infringements of parliamentary authority must first pass a plenary vote, and that National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik filed the request without the authority to do so.

Yang Hong-seok, a legal counsel for the Assembly, argued that there is neither a constitutional nor a legal basis for a plenary vote in such a situation, but that parliament is willing to undertake the necessary procedures should a plenary vote be ruled a requirement.

Constitutional Court Justice Kim Hyung-du asked why the ruling People Power Party sent an official document regarding Ma’s confirmation hearing in December if there was no bipartisan agreement, the lack of which the acting president cited as the reason for deferring the appointment.

Choi’s team said the ruling party decided there was no agreement after the main opposition Democratic Party went back on an earlier deal, in which the rival parties agreed to cooperate on the appointment of a new court president.

The court, which resumed oral arguments on Monday at Choi’s request, decided to end the proceedings. It will set a date for a ruling at a later time and notify the two sides. 

Choi is accused of acting unconstitutionally by appointing only two of the three nominees put forth by parliament on December 31.