Seoul: A group of hardline lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party, including Kim Yong-min, Min Hyung-bae, and Jang Kyung-tae, has introduced four bills this week that call for the abolition of the current prosecution service. The proposed legislation aims to dismantle the Prosecutors' Office and redistribute its functions: investigative powers would be transferred to a newly formed Major Crimes Investigation Agency, while prosecutorial authority would be reassigned to a separate Prosecution Agency.

According to Yonhap News Agency, if enacted, these bills would dismantle the institutional form of the prosecution service that has been in place since the enactment of the Prosecutors' Office Act in 1949. This would not merely be a routine administrative change but a foundational transformation of Korea's criminal justice system. The lack of sufficient public debate and social consensus on the matter raises concerns about the legitimacy of such a sweeping change.

The sponsoring lawmakers have advocated for the bills to pass within three months. However, the significant scale and implications of the reform necessitate a more cautious approach. The separation of prosecutorial powers has long been a contentious issue in Korea. During the Moon Jae-in administration, the Democratic Party's push for a "complete separation" of prosecution powers met with fierce resistance from the opposition People Power Party, which accused the ruling bloc of attempting to protect political corruption.

A compromise during that period, brokered by then-Speaker Park Byeong-seok, limited the prosecution's investigative powers to corruption and economic crimes, transferring other investigative functions to the police. Under the current Yoon Suk Yeol administration, the prosecution's role has expanded again through an executive order, reigniting political controversy.

With the Lee Jae-myung administration newly in office, some ruling party lawmakers are now moving swiftly to revive the agenda for dismantling the prosecution service. However, the timing and manner of the proposal have raised procedural concerns. Even after winning the presidency, the Democratic Party must avoid unilateral legislative actions, especially on issues of such significance. The current proposal does not represent an official party platform and was introduced without consultation with the executive branch. President Lee has yet to nominate a justice minister, who would play a crucial role in any prosecution reform effort.

Criticism is also surfacing within the ruling camp. Some lawmakers have observed that their colleagues are behaving "like opposition lawmakers or civic activists," neglecting the policy coordination expected of a governing party. The proposed framework would distribute investigative authority among three agencies: the new investigation unit, the police's National Office of Investigation, and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials. Despite legal distinctions between jurisdictions, on-the-ground confusion is likely, as demonstrated by the chaotic handling of last year's martial law investigation, which revealed the limitations of fragmented investigative authority.

While President Lee pledged to separate investigative and prosecutorial functions during his campaign, multiple approaches to implementation remain viable. It would be premature to proceed without first hearing from the justice minister nominee. The more sensitive the issue, the more crucial it is to allow time for thorough deliberation.

In his inaugural address, President Lee vowed to be "a president who ends divisive politics." To fulfill that promise, he and his party must engage not only supporters but also critics in open, future-oriented discussions.