법익균형성 심사의 구조와 필수 고려사항 — 국회의원의 연임제한을 구체적 사례로 —

초록

The principle of balancing legal interests requires harmony and equilibrium when legal interests—such as fundamental rights and the public interest—conflict; it prohibits placing excessive emphasis on one interest at the expense of another. Recently, amid public criticism that multi-term lawmakers in certain districts treat their constituencies as personal fiefdoms — effectively privatizing them through unlimited consecutive re-elections — legislative moves have emerged to limit candidacy for the National Assembly to a maximum of three consecutive terms in the same district. Such legislation gives rise to a conflict of legal interests where the principle of balancing interests applies. The public interest sought through this limitation is the prevention of entrenched political interests and the oligarchy of power within constituencies by facilitating the entry of political newcomers and ensuring a smooth generational shift in politics. Conversely, the legal interest directly infringed upon by limiting candidacy to three consecutive terms in the same district is the fundamental right to stand for election (passive suffrage). Restrictions on the right to stand for election can narrow the range of candidates available, thereby effectively limiting the voting rights of constituents in a specific district. Such restrictions on political participation rights — comprising both the right to vote and the right to stand for election — can undermine the values ​​of democracy, which is fundamentally rooted in civic political participation, and specifically those of representative democracy, which centers on the electoral system. What is the most rational approach when assigning priority to a specific legal interest — not by quantifying the competing interests (whether absolutely or relatively) to determine superiority, but by establishing qualitative precedence? The most rational method is to compare the respective legal interests and articulate a “justifiable reason” for prioritizing one over the other. The core of the assessment based on the principle of balancing legal interests lies in weighing two competing public interests: on one hand, the need to facilitate the entry of political newcomers and ensure a smooth generational shift — thereby preventing the entrenchment of vested interests and political oligarchy in constituencies — and on the other, the need to secure legislative expertise and the capacity for state oversight by producing experienced, multi-term lawmakers, while also considering the significance of the right to run for office and the voting rights of the electorate affected by restrictions on that right.

키워드