Constitutional Court denies Yoon team's request for judge's recusal
Published: 14 Jan. 2025, 17:06
-
- MICHAEL LEE
- [email protected]
Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI
![Justices of the Constitutional Court attend the first formal hearing of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial inside the court's main chamber in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Jan. 14. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/01/14/533725f1-6b54-4985-aa1a-515cbeccc397.jpg)
Justices of the Constitutional Court attend the first formal hearing of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial inside the court's main chamber in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Jan. 14. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]
The Constitutional Court denied a request from President Yoon Suk Yeol’s legal defense for Justice Jung Gye-seon’s recusal while hearing the first oral arguments of his impeachment trial on Tuesday.
The hearing, the first of five to be held at the Constitutional Court, ended within four minutes of opening due to Yoon’s absence.
All eight justices were present for the hearing after the court denied a request from Yoon’s legal team for Jung to be excluded from his impeachment trial.
The request, which was filed on Sunday, called for Jung’s recusal on the grounds that she had shared her forecast for the trial during a hearing at the National Assembly last month and previously served as chair of a law research society mostly comprised of left-leaning judges.
Yoon’s legal team further argued that Jung could not be relied upon to rule fairly in his case as her husband works for a foundation headed by one of the leaders of the National Assembly’s impeachment investigation committee, which is the main plaintiff in Yoon’s trial.
However, acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae said the demand for Jung’s recusal was dismissed “based on the unanimous opinion of the seven other justices.”
Court spokesperson Cheon Jae-yeon told reporters that the court’s decision to deny the recusal request could not be appealed.
She also noted that all previous recusal requests have been dismissed.
Due to Yoon’s absence, Moon said that the court would not continue with the hearing in accordance with Article 52 of the Constitutional Court Act, which requires oral arguments to be rescheduled if the defendant cannot be present for the first hearing.
However, Moon said that the trial will proceed even if Yoon is absent for oral arguments on Thursday at 2 p.m. in accordance with Clause 2 of Article 52, which allows the court to carry on with impeachment proceedings if the defendant fails to appear for the second hearing.
Tuesday’s formal hearing marks the first to be held by the court a month after it received the National Assembly’s impeachment motion against Yoon for declaring martial law on Dec. 3.
Although Yoon’s legal defense team initially said he intended to appear before the court to defend himself, they announced on Sunday he would likely be absent due to safety concerns and the chance that investigators from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) could attempt to execute a warrant for his arrest if he attended the hearing.
The CIO previously attempted to detain Yoon on Jan. 3 but failed after encountering resistance from Presidential Security Service agents and military personnel.
![Members of the National Assembly's impeachment investigation committee arrive at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, to attend the first formal hearing of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial on Jan. 14. [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/01/14/ce217631-5dae-4dd9-a1c0-4e858c2801a2.jpg)
Members of the National Assembly's impeachment investigation committee arrive at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, to attend the first formal hearing of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial on Jan. 14. [NEWS1]
Ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, the National Assembly’s impeachment committee submitted a list of witnesses and evidence to support the parliamentary motion for Yoon’s removal from office on grounds of inciting an insurrection.
The witnesses named by the committee include Lt. Gen. Yeo In-hyung, former Defense Counterintelligence Command chief, Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-geun, former Army Special Warfare Command chief, Lt. Gen. Lee Jin-woo, former commander of the Capital Defense Command, Cho Ji-ho, former National Police Agency commissioner, and Hong Jang-won, former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service.
Yeo, Kwak and Lee are accused of sending troops to the National Assembly the night Yoon declared martial law and trying to forcibly prevent lawmakers assembled there from voting to overturn his decree, while Cho is accused of sending police officers to the legislature to help martial law forces block access to the building.
During a subsequent parliamentary inquiry, Hong said that Yoon ordered the arrest of key politicians under his martial law decree, including Democratic Party (DP) leader Lee Jae-myung, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik and then-People Power Party (PPP) leader Han Dong-hoon.
The Constitutional Court has 180 days since it received the impeachment motion against Yoon on Dec. 14 to reinstate or remove him from office.
If the court upholds the impeachment motion, a presidential election must be held within 60 days.
In an apparent move to counter the DP’s push to appoint a special counsel to investigate Yoon’s short-lived martial law decree, the PPP on Tuesday decided to propose its own bill for a special counsel probe into the president’s actions.
According to PPP floor leader Rep. Kweon Seong-dong, the PPP’s version only calls for an investigation into Yoon’s martial law declaration without addressing the insurrection and treason allegations in the DP bill.
Kweon also called for the CIO to halt its efforts to arrest the impeached president until the Assembly appoints a special counsel.
BY MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)