Seoul: Acting President Han Duck-soo's recent decision to nominate two new justices to the Constitutional Court has sparked significant criticism for potentially exceeding the boundaries of his interim authority. With the terms of Justices Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-sun nearing expiration, Han selected Lee Wan-kyu and Ham Sang-hun as their successors. Additionally, Han appointed Ma Eun-hyuk, a nominee proposed by the National Assembly, following a Constitutional Court ruling deeming the ongoing delay unconstitutional.

According to Yonhap News Agency, although maintaining a complete bench on the Constitutional Court is crucial, Han's unilateral actions have raised serious concerns. An acting president, who assumes office through constitutional succession rather than election, should avoid exercising powers typically reserved for an elected president, particularly in sensitive areas such as judicial appointments. These decisions necessitate broad political consensus rather than executive imposition.

The inconsistency in Han's actions is evident. He previously declined to appoint three justices recommended by the National Assembly late last year. His abrupt change towards assertive presidential power use, especially when the court may engage in politically sensitive cases, is challenging to justify.

The nominations themselves have faced scrutiny. Lee Wan-kyu, noted for his close association with former President Yoon Suk Yeol, was allegedly present at a controversial meeting following the Dec. 3 martial law scenario suggestion. While no evidence suggests his involvement in illegal planning, appointing someone with such political connections to a lifetime judicial role may not alleviate public distrust.

The Democratic Party has indicated potential challenges to the nominations in court and may seek an injunction. National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik expressed his refusal to accept a request for confirmation hearings, and discussions of a second impeachment motion against Han have emerged.

With the June 3 presidential election approaching and economic uncertainty rising amid renewed U.S. trade pressure, Han's focus should be on preserving institutional stability rather than inciting fresh constitutional disputes. His expertise in economic policy could be advantageous during this volatile period. However, his recent actions risk escalating political tensions and diminishing trust in the judiciary.

Han is urged to reconsider these nominations. His constitutional responsibility is to manage the transition with impartiality and restraint. Overstepping this mandate could undermine the very institutions he is tasked with protecting.