Unpredictability and resilience of Korean democracy
Published: 05 Dec. 2024, 19:51
HAN YOUNG-IK
The author is a national news reporter of the JoongAng Ilbo.
The emergency martial law that lasted for six hours on Dec. 3 and 4 was marked with unconstitutional and illegal elements. Most constitutional scholars agree that the requirement to declare martial law was not met. The current situation cannot be deemed a “state of emergency or war, or equivalent national crisis” as stipulated in Article 77 of the Constitution. It is hard to say that the reasons the president mentioned — for instance, the opposition party’s budget bill reduction and the impeachment of the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection and prosecutors — can be considered a national emergency. These issues should be politically resolved. It is controversial whether the cabinet meeting to deliberate martial law was held properly.
It is also noted that he did not abide by Article 4 of the Martial Law Act, requiring the president to immediately notify the National Assembly without delay upon declaring martial law. He only made a live statement on television, and National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik said that the president did not notify the National Assembly.
What’s more serious is the contents of martial law that bans the political activities of the National Assembly. The martial law command issued a decree prohibiting all political activities such as activities of the National Assembly, local councils, political parties, assembly and rallies. This not only directly violates Article 13 of the Martial Law Act stating, “During martial law, a lawmaker shall not be arrested or detained unless they are a current offender,” but also attempts to disable Article 77 of the Constitution, which stipulates that “If the National Assembly demands lifting martial law with the approval of a majority of the incumbent lawmakers, the president must lift it.”
Martial law forces attempted to carry out these orders at the scene. A total of 280 armed elite soldiers, including airborne troops, broke windows and entered the National Assembly building, confronting lawmakers and their aides. These actions were captured on the cameras of different media on the scene. The Supreme Court ruled that the case of former presidents Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae-woo obstructing National Assembly members’ attendance constituted a rebellion. Complaints are pouring in to investigation agencies calling for Yoon to be punished for rebellion. Even an incumbent president is subject to be prosecuted for the crime of rebellion. Discussion for impeaching Yoon is on the way.
The only comforting part is that we confirmed the self-sustaining power of Korean democracy. The constitution was not interrupted by the “presidential risk,” thanks to the lawmakers and citizens gathered at the National Assembly to neutralize emergency martial law. It is similar to the Tennis Court Oath of 1789. When the representatives of the Third Estate, or the commoners, opposed a tax increase, French King Louis XVI locked the National Assembly meeting room. The representatives moved to the tennis court and pledged that they would not separate and would reassemble whenever necessary. The Tennis Court Oath triggered the French Revolution. How will martial law change Korean society?
The author is a national news reporter of the JoongAng Ilbo.
The emergency martial law that lasted for six hours on Dec. 3 and 4 was marked with unconstitutional and illegal elements. Most constitutional scholars agree that the requirement to declare martial law was not met. The current situation cannot be deemed a “state of emergency or war, or equivalent national crisis” as stipulated in Article 77 of the Constitution. It is hard to say that the reasons the president mentioned — for instance, the opposition party’s budget bill reduction and the impeachment of the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection and prosecutors — can be considered a national emergency. These issues should be politically resolved. It is controversial whether the cabinet meeting to deliberate martial law was held properly.
It is also noted that he did not abide by Article 4 of the Martial Law Act, requiring the president to immediately notify the National Assembly without delay upon declaring martial law. He only made a live statement on television, and National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik said that the president did not notify the National Assembly.
What’s more serious is the contents of martial law that bans the political activities of the National Assembly. The martial law command issued a decree prohibiting all political activities such as activities of the National Assembly, local councils, political parties, assembly and rallies. This not only directly violates Article 13 of the Martial Law Act stating, “During martial law, a lawmaker shall not be arrested or detained unless they are a current offender,” but also attempts to disable Article 77 of the Constitution, which stipulates that “If the National Assembly demands lifting martial law with the approval of a majority of the incumbent lawmakers, the president must lift it.”
Martial law forces attempted to carry out these orders at the scene. A total of 280 armed elite soldiers, including airborne troops, broke windows and entered the National Assembly building, confronting lawmakers and their aides. These actions were captured on the cameras of different media on the scene. The Supreme Court ruled that the case of former presidents Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae-woo obstructing National Assembly members’ attendance constituted a rebellion. Complaints are pouring in to investigation agencies calling for Yoon to be punished for rebellion. Even an incumbent president is subject to be prosecuted for the crime of rebellion. Discussion for impeaching Yoon is on the way.
The only comforting part is that we confirmed the self-sustaining power of Korean democracy. The constitution was not interrupted by the “presidential risk,” thanks to the lawmakers and citizens gathered at the National Assembly to neutralize emergency martial law. It is similar to the Tennis Court Oath of 1789. When the representatives of the Third Estate, or the commoners, opposed a tax increase, French King Louis XVI locked the National Assembly meeting room. The representatives moved to the tennis court and pledged that they would not separate and would reassemble whenever necessary. The Tennis Court Oath triggered the French Revolution. How will martial law change Korean society?
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)