section_path: Jurisdiction/Judicial review of statutes
section_name: Judicial review of statutes
paragraph_text: Judicial review of statutes
  
  According to Article 111 Clause 1 Provision 1 of the constitution, the Constitutional Court may review the constitutionality of statutes at the request of ordinary courts – a power referred to as judicial review (사법심사) or officially Adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes (위헌법률심판) in Article 4 Clause 1 of the Constitutional Court Act. In a legal dispute, if the court's decision depends on the constitutionality of laws relevant to the case, either party may request the court to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for review. However, the court has discretion on whether to grant the request. If the court decides not to refer the matter, the aggrieved party can file a "constitutional complaint" directly with the Constitutional Court and bypass the ordinary court. The procedural hurdles involved in requesting adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes imply that only parties directly involved in an ongoing legal case are eligible to request a referral from the court. This means that a person who may suffer abstract or potential injuries is not eligible for this legal resource. In other words, a party must have a concrete and specific interest in the outcome of the case to request a referral to the Constitutional Court.
  
  Article 41 Clause 5 of the Constitutional Court Act establishes that once an ordinary court has requested the Constitutional Court to adjudicate on the constitutionality of statutes, no superior court, including the Supreme Court, may intervene. This restriction on the powers of the Supreme Court stems from its historical passivity in confronting other branches of government during periods of authoritarian rule.
  
  The procedural requirement that an ordinary court must refer the case for Constitutional Court review was abused by President Park Chung Hee under the Yushin Constitution. He refused to re-appoint Supreme Court justices who challenged his authority, effectively preventing the ordinary courts from making any formal requests for constitutional review. This event laid bare the vulnerabilities of making constitutional review contingent upon a court's request.
  
  As a result, the 1987 tenth constitutional amendment introduced another avenue for an interested party to bypass the ordinary courts and directly ask the Constitutional Court to intervene in constitutional review. This alternative route, called constitutional complaint (헌법소원심판), is defined in Article 68 Clause 2 of the Constitutional Court Act.