Latest news with #ConstitutionalCourtofSouthKorea
Russia Today
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
South Korean president ousted over martial law debacle
The Constitutional Court of South Korea on Friday formally ousted former President Yoon Suk Yeol over his controversial decision to impose martial law late last year. The unanimous verdict upheld parliament's decision to impeach the president, which plunged the country into political chaos. Yoon declared emergency martial law on December 3 last year, claiming the country's opposition was plotting a 'rebellion' and accusing his opponents of sympathizing with North Korea. The order, however, flopped and was promptly overruled by the parliament, with the backing of the military. He was impeached in mid-December and arrested on January 15. The court dismissed all of Yoon's attempts to justify his actions, ruling that the president had overstepped his authority through 'unlawful and unconstitutional' conduct. 'The defendant mobilized military and police forces to dismantle the authority of constitutional institutions and infringed upon the fundamental rights of the people. In doing so, he abandoned his constitutional duty to uphold the constitution and gravely betrayed the trust of the Korean people,' acting chief justice Moon Hyung-bae stated. READ MORE: South Korean president indicted 'The negative consequences and ripple effects of these actions are substantial, and the benefit of restoring constitutional order through removal from office outweighs the national costs associated with the dismissal of a sitting president,' the judge added. Yoon accepted the court's verdict, who said it had been a 'great honor' to work in his role and expressed gratitude to his supporters who backed him despite his 'many shortcomings.' Yoon's arrest triggered a new wave of violent unrest, with his supporters storming the Seoul Western District Court. The ousted leader was ultimately indicted for leading an insurrection, one of the charges for which a South Korean president does not have immunity. If convicted, Yoon could face life imprisonment or capital punishment. According to South Korean laws, a new president must be chosen within 60-days. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo will act as an interim president until a new leader is sworn in.
Asia Times
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
Historic reckoning in South Korea
The unanimous decision by the Constitutional Court of South Korea to remove President Yoon Suk-yeol from office represents a critical moment in the Republic's democratic history. The ruling, issued on April 4, 2025, not only resolves a deepening constitutional crisis but also sets a powerful precedent regarding the limits of executive authority, the resilience of institutional checks and balances, and the enduring primacy of the rule of law in times of political dysfunction. Amid widespread concerns over global democratic backsliding and within a region marked by increasing strategic volatility, South Korea's judiciary has acted decisively to uphold the integrity of its constitutional framework. In doing so, it reaffirmed the foundational premise of democratic governance: that all political actors, including the head of state, remain fully accountable under constitutional law. President Yoon's impeachment stemmed from a broad and deeply troubling array of actions, all of which the Constitutional Court found to be unconstitutional. At the center of the case was Yoon's unilateral declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024– a move the Court deemed unjustified by any legal or factual standard. Far from addressing a genuine national emergency, the declaration was viewed as a deliberate attempt to suppress legislative oversight and criminalize political dissent. Yoon had further escalated the constitutional crisis by ordering the deployment of military and police units to interfere with the functioning of the National Assembly – an act that directly violated the core principle of separation of powers and undermined the autonomy of the legislature. The Court also identified procedural violations in the manner martial law was declared, particularly Yoon's decision to bypass constitutionally mandated cabinet deliberations and disregard the required countersignatures from ministers. Moreover, his issuance of Proclamation No. 1 – which banned the political activities of lawmakers and parties – was seen as an authoritarian attempt to neutralize political opposition and dismantle representative democracy. The situation was compounded by attempts to intimidate the National Election Commission through surveillance and planned raids. These actions, taken collectively, were not merely procedural irregularities; they constituted a direct and deliberate assault on the foundational norms of South Korea's democratic constitutional order. The impeachment, therefore, was not a matter of partisan rivalry, but a profound legal reckoning with executive overreach. In assessing the declaration of martial law, the Court cited the South Korean Constitution, which allows such a measure only in extreme situations – such as war or national emergencies – that make civil governance unworkable. The Court found no evidence to support the claim that such conditions existed. The legislative process – including the initiation of an impeachment motion – cannot be construed as an existential threat to the nation. As such, the Court ruled that Yoon's invocation of emergency powers was an unjustified and disproportionate use of state authority. This action, rather than addressing any legitimate security concern, sought to criminalize dissent and circumvent the democratic process. The Court's decision thus served as a forceful defense of legislative sovereignty and the inviolability of constitutional procedures. The use of state force to disrupt legislative proceedings and intimidate elected representatives was declared a grave constitutional violation. The constitutional provisions safeguarding the autonomy and supremacy of the National Assembly in its legislative and oversight roles were unequivocally breached. The Court also ruled that Proclamation No. 1 had no legal foundation and amounted to an autocratic directive that suppressed political pluralism – an essential component of democratic governance. By replacing lawful democratic engagement with executive decree, Yoon attempted to substitute authoritarian control for constitutional rule. What further distinguishes this ruling is the unanimity with which it was delivered. In contrast to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017, which, although upheld, exposed deep public and political divisions, the decision to remove President Yoon was endorsed by all eight sitting justices. This rare judicial solidarity amplifies the legitimacy of the verdict and underscores the judiciary's commitment to defending democratic norms. The court presented itself not as a partisan actor but as a guardian of constitutionalism – rising above political polarization to deliver a clear and binding interpretation of the law. Its assertion that President Yoon had 'abandoned his duty to uphold the Constitution and betrayed the trust of the people' captured both the moral weight and legal precision of its conclusion. Although the Court acknowledged the reality of political dysfunction, including obstructionist tactics by the opposition, it categorically rejected any suggestion that such circumstances could justify an executive override of constitutional processes. The ruling emphasized the imperative of resolving political disputes through established legal mechanisms, dialogue, and compromise. By framing Yoon's conduct as not just illegal but a betrayal of democratic ethos, the court reinforced the principle of constitutional patriotism – asserting that loyalty to the constitutional order must supersede personal ambition or partisan loyalty. In this sense, the verdict transcended the legal realm to offer a philosophical reaffirmation of democracy itself: a vision in which the rule of law stands as the final arbiter of power. In the wake of the ruling, South Korea must now transition toward new political leadership. Under the Constitution, a presidential election must be held within 60 days following the removal of a president from office. With Yoon's dismissal finalized on April 4, 2025, the country is poised for a pivotal electoral contest Current polling indicates that Lee Jae-myung, former leader of the Democratic Party, is the leading candidate. Should Lee secure the presidency, he is expected to implement significant changes in both domestic governance and South Korea's foreign policy orientation. Unlike Yoon, who closely aligned his administration with the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy and emphasized trilateral cooperation with the US and Japan, Lee is likely to pursue a more balanced and multipolar foreign policy. His approach envisions a diversification of strategic partnerships, a strengthening of ties with middle powers such as Eurasian, ASEAN and South Asian countries, and active advocacy for the reform of global governance structures to make them more inclusive and equitable. This prospective shift signals a reorientation of South Korea's international role – from one rooted in rigid geopolitical blocs to a more pragmatic and issue-based regional framework. Within this evolving foreign policy landscape, the potential for deeper strategic engagement with India stands out as a particularly promising development. As two of Asia's most prominent democracies, India and South Korea share a longstanding commitment to a rules-based international order, peaceful conflict resolution, and economic growth propelled by technological innovation. India's expanding global influence – demonstrated through its campaign for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and leadership in multilateral platforms such as the G20, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – aligns well with South Korea's aspiration to pursue middle power diplomacy and strategic autonomy. There exists a clear opportunity to deepen bilateral cooperation across a range of strategic sectors. Economic integration remains a high priority, bringing with it enhanced collaboration in emerging domains such as artificial intelligence, green technologies, and digital trade. On the multilateral stage, both nations can benefit from closer coordination in global governance reform efforts – particularly in areas like climate policy, cybersecurity, and the restructuring of institutions such as the WTO and WHO. South Korea's anticipated shift toward deeper engagement with middle powers under new leadership represents more than a tactical adjustment in foreign policy – it reflects a broader convergence of democratic values and a mutual acknowledgment of each nation's evolving influence in the global order. At the same time, the administration's expected outreach to China, Russia, and North Korea signals a significant recalibration of regional diplomacy. By pursuing more constructive relations with these neighboring powers, South Korea has the potential to reshape the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia. Such efforts could help ease long-standing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, revive dormant diplomatic initiatives, and promote a more balanced and inclusive security framework. Beyond political rapprochement, this strategic realignment may pave the way for enhanced economic cooperation, joint energy ventures, and expanded humanitarian engagement – marking a shift toward pragmatic diplomacy grounded in coexistence, stability, and long-term regional resilience. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court's ruling on April 4, 2025, marks more than the removal of a sitting president – it stands as a democratic milestone. By holding President Yoon accountable for flagrant violations of constitutional norms, the court delivered a powerful message both domestically and internationally: Democracy is not just a form of government but a framework of accountability and institutional integrity. South Korea has shown that even in times of crisis, it is possible for a democracy to confront and overcome internal challenges without compromising its core principles. The decision affirms the strength of constitutionalism in East Asia and serves as a reminder that the true test of democracy lies not in the absence of conflict but in the ability to resolve it through law, justice, and the enduring authority of democratic institutions. As the nation prepares for new leadership and a possible redefinition of its global role, the world watches closely – perhaps with admiration for a democracy that has chosen to uphold its highest ideals when they were most at risk.
Asia Times
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
South Korea's Constitutional Court should uphold Yoon's impeachment
Although the impeachment ruling in the case of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol remains delayed, the Constitutional Court of South Korea, on March 24, made a decision to dismiss the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. The reasoning for dismissing Han's impeachment shows parallels to the dismissal of former President Roh Moo-hyun's impeachment in 2004. In both cases, the Constitutional Court acknowledged the violation of the law by the accused but found that the violations were not serious enough to justify presidential removal. In Roh's impeachment case in 2004, the court recognized that the then-president had violated the election law through breach of his duty of electoral neutrality. However, it concluded that this violation was not severe enough to warrant impeachment and dismissal. These cases demonstrate that a key legal issue in impeachment trials is determining whether the act in question violates the Constitution and laws – and, if so, whether the severity of the violation justifies impeachment. So, what constitutional issues are involved in Yoon's impeachment trial? Some have expressed concerns that, as in Han's case and Roh's cases, Yoon's impeachment could be dismissed. However, the issues surrounding Yoon's impeachment are fundamentally different from the previous cases. The most important distinction is the gravity of the issue. The declaration of martial law goes beyond mere legal violations. It is a direct abuse of presidential powers and a violation of the people's fundamental rights, posing a severe threat to democratic governance. This is far more serious than the issues surrounding President Roh's impeachment and carries a clear constitutional violation, making it sufficient grounds for impeachment. The martial law declaration of December 3, 2024, clearly violates constitutional requirements both procedurally and substantively. This violation is not merely a breach of law but a significant unconstitutional act that threatens the Constitution and the democratic order, and it justifies the removal of the president. The government argues that the martial law declaration was an unavoidable measure to counteract the legislative dictatorship of the Democratic Party, the opposition in South Korea. However, this claim lacks substantial grounding and fails to meet the criteria set forth in Article 77 of the Constitution in South Korea. The justification for martial law must be evaluated based on two criteria: Procedural legality: This criterion evaluates whether the martial law declaration meets constitutional and legal requirements. In other words, it examines whether certain conditions (outlined in Article 77 of the Constitution and in relevant laws) – such as the existence of a national emergency that threatens the survival of the nation, akin to wartime conditions or an emergency – are met. However, President Yoon's claim of an 'opposition-led legislative dictatorship' does not meet the constitutional requirement of a national emergency. The situation presented does not approach the extreme conditions that threaten the nation's survival. This criterion evaluates whether the martial law declaration meets constitutional and legal requirements. In other words, it examines whether certain conditions (outlined in Article 77 of the Constitution and in relevant laws) – such as the existence of a national emergency that threatens the survival of the nation, akin to wartime conditions or an emergency – are met. However, President Yoon's claim of an 'opposition-led legislative dictatorship' does not meet the constitutional requirement of a national emergency. The situation presented does not approach the extreme conditions that threaten the nation's survival. Substantive necessity: This criterion assesses whether the martial law declaration was an unavoidable measure to preserve the democratic order. It questions whether the political order was at risk of collapse to the extent that the problem could not be remedied by existing legal or administrative means. Martial law cannot be justified simply by political disagreements or opposition to government checks. Article 77 of the Constitution specifies that military intervention is a last resort to restore order. However, President Yoon's declaring martial law to address opposition political activities is merely a political maneuver. In a democracy, political disputes should be resolved through the legislature and judiciary, not through military intervention. If military action is employed for political purposes, it violates the principle of political neutrality outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution. Citing the impeachment of government officials, investigations into the first lady's corruption, and the party's attempts to paralyse government functions through the rejection of budget bills, the Yoon defense argues that martial law was necessary to prevent the legislative dictatorship of the Democratic Party. However, those actions are simply part of normal political contention and do not threaten the public welfare or the nation's order. In other words, the Democratic Party's activities are part of the democratic process and cannot be construed as a legitimate reason to declare martial law. To justify impeachment in South Korea, two primary considerations must be met: First, the president's actions must clearly violate the Constitution and laws. Yoon's defense claims that all conditions for impeachment have not been met. Yoon argues that the declaration of martial law was a necessary constitutional measure to address an emergency situation and, as such, was legally conducted and did not seriously undermine constitutional order. Furthermore, even if martial law is found to violate Article 77, Yoon argues, such a violation does not constitute a 'grave' offense that justifies impeachment. As demonstrated above, however, the martial law declaration on December 3, 2024, did not meet the constitutional criteria for necessity, and its procedural legality is questionable. Therefore, there is no valid justification for martial law in this case. Accordingly, the key issue in determining the legitimacy of the impeachment trial is the second criterion, the severity of the legal violation. The violation must be so severe that it undermines the democratic order. Impeachment requires not just an unconstitutional act but a violation that seriously undermines the democratic order. In other words, even if a President violates the Constitution or laws, the severity of the violation must be significant enough to justify impeachment as a remedy. In the 2004 Roh case, the Constitutional Court found that although the then-president had violated the election law, his actions did not warrant the extreme measure of impeachment as the violation did not affect the nation's governance to such an extent. The court established in Roh's case that impeachment requires not only a legal violation but also a violation that fundamentally undermines the principle of popular sovereignty and the constitutional order. In contrast, the martial law Yoon declared on December 3, 2024, represents more than just a legal violation. The Martial Law Command Proclamation No. 1 issued by General Park An-soo, the martial law commander at the time, explicitly prohibited all political activities, including the activities of the National Assembly, local assemblies, political parties, and political associations as well as gatherings and demonstrations. This was an attempt to suspend the functions of the National Assembly and local assemblies, which are core institutions of democracy, and it constitutes a clear illegal act that violates constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and democratic decision-making processes. Article 77, Section 5 of the Constitution and Article 13 of the Martial Law Act each grant the National Assembly the authority to lift martial law and guarantee the parliamentary immunity of lawmakers. If the President uses martial law to prohibit the activities of the National Assembly, the Assembly will be unable to carry out its original role, making it impossible to lift martial law. This will result in the president holding the sole authority to lift martial law, effectively dismantling the democratic system of the country and the principle of separation of powers. While the principles outlined in the case of the dismissal of Roh's impeachment may be referenced in Yoon's impeachment trial, in Yoon's case the act of declaring martial law should be considered a severe unconstitutional act as it directly threatened the constitution and democratic order. Therefore, the possibility of his impeachment being upheld rather than dismissed should carry greater weight. Ultimately, the impeachment trial and the martial law declaration are not just political events; they are critical constitutional matters that determine the future of democracy in South Korea. Dismissing the impeachment and justifying martial law would signal a dangerous regression for democracy and could lead to an abnormal expansion of presidential powers. Therefore, the Constitutional Court must make a clear legal judgment and issue a ruling that upholds democratic principles. Only by doing so can the separation of powers be preserved, and the constitutional order be maintained. The Constitutional Court must take careful, responsible action in reviewing the violations of the Constitution committed by a president who has lost the public's trust. By doing so, the Court can play a crucial role in safeguarding the values of democracy and the rule of law. Taehyeon Kim is a licensed attorney in the state of New York. She is currently pursuing a PhD in Law at the University of Edinburgh.
