Constitutional Court rejects beef import protest petition

(ATTN: ADDS more background in para 3; UPDATES with details at bottom; TRIMS lead,
para 5)
SEOUL, Dec. 26 (Yonhap) -- Despite the fierce nationwide opposition it fueled for
months, the South Korean government's decision to resume U.S. beef imports and
its process were not in violation of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court
ruled Friday.
The court said in a statement that it rejected a petition, signed in record
number by some 96,000 people, filed in May that raised questions about the
legitimacy of the decision and its process.
The petitioners argued that the government's decision greatly increased the
chances of an outbreak of the human variant of cow disease in South Korea and
was, therefore, an infringement on citizens' right to life, integrity, health and
pursuit of happiness.
South Korea was the third-largest importer of U.S. beef, after Japan and Mexico,
until a blanket ban was imposed in 2003 following the discovery of a case of mad
cow disease in the U.S. state of Washington.
After rounds of negotiations, Seoul agreed in April to resume U.S. beef imports
along with an additional protocol restricting imports to beef from cattle younger
than 30 months. But fears over the brain-wasting illness stirred thousands to
take to the streets for months throughout the summer, demanding the deal be
renegotiated.
Proponents of the petition claimed that the age limit is only an addendum to the
original agreement, under which Seoul cannot suspend U.S. beef imports if the
U.S. discovers a case of mad cow disease unless the World Organization for Animal
Health (OIE) directs it.
Opponents have also pointed out that the extra measures impose only a "voluntary"
restriction on U.S. exporters, not a U.S. government-enforced one.
Of the nine presiding judges in the deliberation, five voted in favor of
rejecting the petition and three for deferring the vote. One judge voted that the
decision was unconstitutional.
While acknowledging that the added protocol may not be the "perfect" measures,
"it cannot be concluded as being insufficient to the extent of breaching the
people's right to health," the court said.
odissy@yna.co.kr
(END)