In 2020, the police announced an amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assembly and Demonstration Act’), which strengthens noise standards in residential areas at night. The nighttime noise standard proposed at the time was 55dB, which required a lower volume than normal conversation. In 2009, even though the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which banned nighttime assemblies, was unconstitutional, it was virtually indirectly restricting nighttime assemblies.
Park Han-hee Public Interest Human Rights Lawyers Association How to Create Hope Attorney
Therefore, the organization I worked with submitted a written opinion, and after that, I received a call from the Prime Minister’s Office Regulatory Reform Committee to listen to their opinions, and I prepared materials on related foreign cases and fundamental rights violations. However, the questions raised in the actual meeting were quite different from what was expected. In particular, one member repeatedly asked these questions. Why do we have to hold meetings in the middle of the night? To answer the above question, there are many reasons for holding meetings at night. There may be a special message to convey at that time, or it may be because many of the participants are available after work hours. However, in fact, these reasons are not the correct answer. This is because freedom of assembly, guaranteed as a fundamental right in the Constitution, includes the right to choose the time, place, and method of assembly. Of course, basic rights can also be limited, but at least it is not a matter of uniformly limiting them by enforcement decrees, not laws.
Therefore, the above question should be cast against the police. Why would you want to limit meetings at night, and I’d like to ask a similar question again. This is why the police are trying to block the assembly in front of the presidential office. Recently, the police announced a legislative notice of an amendment to the enforcement ordinance to include Itaewon-ro, the road in front of the presidential office, in the scope of major roads that can restrict assembly for traffic flow pursuant to Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. The reason is that it reflects the changed situation such as traffic volume, road conditions, and location of major facilities.
The exact traffic statistics on Itaewon-ro are unknown, but it must have increased compared to before. It will be different when there is a government department called the Ministry of National Defense and when there is the President’s Office, the head of state. However, this problem is not the essence of traffic or road conditions. Rather, it is said that the amendment to the Enforcement Decree was created as an extension of the police’s continuous attempts to ban gatherings in front of the President’s Office.
Even before the current Yongsan Presidential Office was put into operation, the police had banned assemblies in front of the Presidential Office based on Article 11, Item 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which prohibited assemblies near the presidential residence. Afterwards, the court decided to suspend the effect of the ban notice, saying that the official residence and the office were different, but the ban was still maintained except for small gatherings, saying that they would wait until the original ruling. And in the original lawsuit last January, a ruling was made that the ban on the assembly by the police was illegal, but now they appealed saying they would receive a judgment from the upper court.
While attempts to ban assemblies based on Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act continue to be blocked by the court, what the police came up with is the restriction of assembly on major roads in accordance with Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. This provision has been criticized for a long time in that it comprehensively entrusts the scope of major roads to enforcement ordinances, enabling arbitrary restrictions on assemblies. The National Police Commission also pointed out that it was ultimately necessary to discuss the revision of Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as it was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the police’s attempt to limit the assembly in front of the presidential office by including Itaewon-ro as a major road continues in the form of this enforcement ordinance revision.
Listening to the will of the people and engaging in communication is a major task that the President must perform in the Oval Office during the day. The Seoul Administrative Court said the above in the ruling to cancel the notice to ban the assembly in front of the presidential office. Even so, how long will the police interfere with the president’s main task of communication? ask the police again. Why can’t we hold a rally in front of the presidential office? Why block the meeting place?