The Constitutional Revision Proposal by Korean government which was made reflecting the constitutional revision on the Presidential term of office only having suggested by President Moo-Hyon Roh outlined 'Presidential reelectable-term for 4 years each' and 'simultaneous election for the Presidency and the Congress.' This paper analyzes and reveals the problems from various viewpoints that appear on the Constitutional Revision Proposal by the government. Based on the critical analyses, it aims at exploring the desirable directions for constitutional revision focusing on the provisions on basic rights whose revision are, in my opinion, more urgent than that of the other constitutional provisions.
First of all, this paper critically analyzes the Constitutional Revision Proposal by the government mainly on the issue of changing Presidential term from 'Presidential single-term for 5 years' to 'Presidential reelectable-term for 4 years each', the issue of the timing of the constitutional revision to make simultaneous election for the Presidency and the Congress, the issue of the inevitability of the constitutional revision, the issue of the desirable leading group of constitutional revision and the problems of acting presidency by prime minister in the Constitutional Revision Proposal.
As for the desirable directions and concrete contents of constitutional revision on basic rights provisions, this paper examines the necessity and urgency to revise the basic rights provisions rather than the provision on Presidential term of office at first. Then, it suggests three major directions to revise the basic rights provisions; first, the revision to make the abstract provisions more substantial in details, second, the revision to make Social State Principle more concrete, and third, the revision to enlarge the scope of foreigner in enjoying the constitutional rights. Finally, based on the major directions, this paper explores the desirable revision directions for concrete basic rights provisions including the creation of affirmative action clause in the Article of Equal Protection and the abolishment of Article 29 Section 2 of the Constitution which has excessively restricted the right to demand compensation by persons on active military service, employees of the military forces and police officials.