2009년 3월에 정부가 강행한 국가인권위원회 조직 감축은 헌법의 정신은 물론 국가인권위원회법 및 행정절차법 등을 위반한 불법적 행정처분이었다. 국가인권위원회법상 인권위의 직제령은 대통령령으로 되어 있으나, 그것은 기본적으로 인권위의 독립성을 전제로 하는 것이며, 따라서 인권위의 직제령 입안 및 제출권은 존중되어야 한다. 국가인권위원회법에서 직제령 제출권은 인권위에 두고, 그 제정권은 정부에 둔 것은 견제 혹은 보완을 위한 업무분장으로 이해되어야 하지, 인권위가 조직상으로는 독립성이 없고 행정부에 속한다는 식으로 오해되어서는 안 된다. 정부의 견제권은 인권위의 자율적 규칙제정권의 오남용을 경계하고, 그 책임성과 민주성을 보완하는 것으로 이해될 수 있다. 따라서 정부는 인권위의 직제령 개정안을 받아서 모법인 인권위법은 물론이고 전체 헌법질서 차원에서 문제는 없는지 심사ㆍ검토하고, 또 공개성과 민주성 등의 원칙에 부합하는 법령제정의 일반 절차에 따라 개정작업을 수행했어야 한다. 그러나 정부는 그가 존중해야 하는 인권위의 고유권한을 침해하였으며, 또 그에 부여된 견제의 권한을 오남용함으로써 우리 법질서가 예정하고 있는 균형과 협력의 관계는 깨지게 되었다.

The Ministry of Public Administration and Security (‘MOPAS’) pushed restructuring of National Human Rights Commission of Korea(‘NHRCK’) and reduced 21.2% of its staff through amending the Chief Commissionerial Decree(Presidential Decree) on the reorganization of the NHRCK. This essay, however, contends that the law-making process of the Decree is against the NHRCK Act, the higher law. Indeed, Article 18 of the Act prescribes, “Except as provided by this Act, matters necessary for the organization of the Commission shall be prescribed by Chief Commissionerial Decree.” But Article 6, Section 4 of the Act prescribes, “The Chief Commissioner of the Commission may attend the State Council, present his/her opinion, and recommend that the Prime Minister introduce bills on matters falling under the mandate of the Commission (including the draft of the Chief Commissionerial Decree regarding the enforcement of this Act).” Moreover, Article 3, Section 2 prescribes, “The Commission independently addresses matters which fall within the purview of its authority.” The MOPAS’ arbitrary and oppressive management is an encroachment on the NHRCK’s initiative for its organizing power as well as a violation of the principle of NHRCK’s independence from the administrative power.

The Ministry of Public Administration and Security (‘MOPAS’) pushed restructuring of National Human Rights Commission of Korea(‘NHRCK’) and reduced 21.2% of its staff through amending the Chief Commissionerial Decree(Presidential Decree) on the reorganization of the NHRCK. This essay, however, contends that the law-making process of the Decree is against the NHRCK Act, the higher law. Indeed, Article 18 of the Act prescribes, “Except as provided by this Act, matters necessary for the organization of the Commission shall be prescribed by Chief Commissionerial Decree.” But Article 6, Section 4 of the Act prescribes, “The Chief Commissioner of the Commission may attend the State Council, present his/her opinion, and recommend that the Prime Minister introduce bills on matters falling under the mandate of the Commission (including the draft of the Chief Commissionerial Decree regarding the enforcement of this Act).” Moreover, Article 3, Section 2 prescribes, “The Commission independently addresses matters which fall within the purview of its authority.” The MOPAS’ arbitrary and oppressive management is an encroachment on the NHRCK’s initiative for its organizing power as well as a violation of the principle of NHRCK’s independence from the administrative power.

National Human Rights Commission of Korea(NHRCK), Chief Commissionerial Decree(Presidential Decree) on the reorganization of the NHRCK, Check and Balance, Law-making Process of the Presidential Decree, Independence of NHRCK