Legislative Proposal Trends and Reform Tasks in the 22nd National Assembly

In a democratic country, laws are the most fundamental rules established by the National Assembly, the representative institution of the people. In Korea, the National Assembly has exclusive authority to enact and amend bills, but both the National Assembly (10 or more lawmakers or a standing committee) and the government have the authority to introduce bills. Legislative initiative is the starting point of all legislative procedures and is therefore critically important.

Granting exclusive legislative authority to members of the National Assembly presupposes that they exercise due caution and a sense of responsibility when introducing bills. In reality, however, misunderstanding of the power to introduce legislation has led to its abuse. Bills are introduced without careful analysis or accountability, and a formalistic custom of legislative initiation has taken root that even encroaches on areas of authority belonging to the judiciary or the executive. This gives rise to serious problems, including an unrealistically excessive number of bills (a quantitative flood), poor quality due to insufficient consideration of feasibility, fragmented or overlapping introductions of similar bills, and reciprocal co-sponsorship in which lawmakers sign on without even knowing the contents.

Among the state institutions prescribed by law, regulation has the most direct impact on the people, as laws affect life exactly as written. Irrational regulations impose burdens on private actors and fail to enhance the welfare of society as a whole. Korea remains in the lower ranks of the OECD Product Market Regulation (PMR) index, meaning that improving the practice of regulatory legislation is directly linked to national competitiveness.

According to the monitoring results of the Good Regulation Citizens Forum, during the first 78 weeks after the opening of the 22nd National Assembly, a total of 13,473 bills were introduced, of which 4,349 (32.3%) were regulatory bills. This means that each member of the National Assembly introduced approximately 0.57 bills per week, revealing the severity of excessive legislation. As seen in the case of the lawmaker who introduced the largest number of bills, the wide-ranging introduction of bills unrelated to one’s standing committee assignment or area of expertise raises doubts about legislative quality.

In addition, in order to satisfy the requirement of at least 10 co-sponsors, the number of co-sponsorships has increased exponentially, with many lawmakers recording more than 1,000 co-sponsored bills. This suggests that the filing requirements are being met through a “reciprocal favor” practice without adequate familiarity with the contents of the bills, while the duty to consider legislative quality is being ignored.

An analysis of the qualitative trend in regulations showed that the number of bad regulation bills introduced (55) exceeded the number of good regulation bills (37), revealing a trend toward poor-quality legislation. Lawmakers also inflated their legislative records through “fragmented/duplicative introductions,” applying the same content across multiple related laws, or by reintroducing bills that had been discarded in previous National Assemblies. Furthermore, they have elevated regulations already found in subordinate statutes into law, even though this is highly likely to produce irrational outcomes by reducing practical adaptability due to greater rigidity in amendment.

To correct these legislative initiation practices of the National Assembly, the following tasks are proposed. First, the principle of separation of powers between the legislature and the executive must be firmly established. The legislature and the executive must preserve the normal order of the state system through checks and balances. Even when exercising legislative power, the legislature must not infringe upon the executive’s inherent sphere of authority. To ensure flexibility and timeliness in policy implementation, legislative restraint is needed: laws should establish broad principles, while detailed policy measures should be delegated to subordinate statutes. The irrational practice of treating legislative power as a tool of political struggle, a means of responding to current issues, or a quantitative measure of legislative activity must be corrected.

Second, a clear distinction must be made between Law and Legislation. According to F. Hayek, Law is a purposeless institution like a “rule of game,” characterized by universality and generality, and serves to formalize rules that have evolved spontaneously through human interaction. By contrast, Legislation consists of purpose-oriented rules designed with a specific plan or goal in mind, and therefore belongs not to “law” but to policy. The legislature should focus on enacting Law and refrain from the practice of turning into statutes those areas of Legislation that properly belong to policy.

Third, lawmakers’ accountability for legislation must be strengthened. Irrational legislation introduced by the legislature causes policy failure and social costs. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen legislative monitoring and institutionalize a real-name system for bills in order to reinforce members of the National Assembly’s accountability for the bills they introduce. Rather than using the name of a person who inspired a bill or prompted its introduction, a real-name system should be adopted under which a bill’s nickname is based on the name of the member of the National Assembly who led it. This could encourage lawmakers themselves to consider the quality of the laws and bills they introduce.

Above all, the level of understanding of democracy must be raised. True democracy lies not simply in the legitimacy of elected representatives, but in respect for the prior principles of the “rule of law” and “separation of powers.” Korea’s legislature shows a relatively low level of understanding of democracy, as seen in its weak capacity to distinguish between law and legislation, its lack of understanding of the rule of law and separation of powers, and its misunderstanding of majoritarian democracy. This tendency toward excessive legislation produces irrational and poor-quality laws, creating a systemic crisis. Therefore, by analyzing the National Assembly’s legislative initiation trends and interpreting their significance, it is necessary to establish democracy in Korean society and continue sustained monitoring and checks on the National Assembly’s legislative activities.

I. Introduction: Why It Is Necessary to Review Legislative Initiation Trends in the National Assembly

1. Authority and Basis for Legislative Initiation

2. Misunderstanding and Abuse of the Authority to Introduce Legislation

3. The Need to Analyze Trends in the Introduction of Regulatory Bills

II. Analysis of Legislative Initiation Trends in the Early Period of the 22nd National Assembly

1. Monitoring Legislative Initiation

2. Analysis of Legislative Initiation Trends

III. Reform Tasks for Correcting the National Assembly’s Legislative Initiation Practices

1. Establishing the Principle of Separation of Powers Between the Legislature and the Executive

2. Clearly Distinguishing Between Law and Legislation

3. Strengthening Lawmaker Accountability for Legislation: Legislative Monitoring and a Real-Name System for Bills

4. Clarifying the Principles of the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers

References

[Appendix 1] Bills Introduced by member of the National Assembly Hyeongbae Min

Wiki:

https://www.cfe.org/w/bbsDetail.php?&idx=55

---

Original title: 22대 국회 입법발의 경향과 개선과제

Author: Hyeok-woo Lee

Date: 2025-12-16

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=report&pn=1&idx=28404