The Constitutional Court also stands on trial

Home > Opinion > Columns

print dictionary print

The Constitutional Court also stands on trial

Ko Jung-ae
 
The author is the editor-in-chief of the JoongAng Sunday.
 
In January 2018, then-President Moon Jae-in's approval ratings soared to unprecedented heights, reaching 73 percent in the second week of the month, according to Gallup Korea. Moon was, by all accounts, a “supreme leader” at the time.
 
Amid this backdrop, a striking interview raised questions about the legitimacy of the impeachment process that had ousted President Park Geun-hye. The critique came from none other than Bae Bo-yoon, the former spokesperson for Korea’s Constitutional Court, who described the impeachment decision as flawed.
 
“The impeachment resolution was poorly substantiated,” Bae stated. “Though lengthy, it was largely based on prosecutorial indictments and media reports. The only official document used as evidence was the prosecutor's indictment, which alleged Park’s collusion with Choi Soon-sil.” Bae also noted the court’s unease during the proceedings, adding, “The court repeatedly questioned why this impeachment was being handled like a criminal case involving petty offenders. Yet, the pressure for a swift trial was overwhelming.”
 
Bae also expressed discomfort with the label of the Constitutional Court as a “political judiciary,” emphasizing that the cases themselves are inherently political, though the judgments are grounded in law. After leaving the court, Bae briefly joined Park’s legal defense team. Now, he serves as a legal representative for impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol — a consistent thread in his career that offers insight into his stance.
 
Another significant figure from the 2016 impeachment trial was Justice Ahn Chang-ho, known for his conservative views. Ahn concurred with the majority decision to remove Park from office but issued a supplementary opinion advocating for the abolition of Korea's imperial presidency. Citing Plato, Ahn warned, “When governance becomes a prize to be won, it leads to civil strife, which destroys both the contenders and the state.” Currently, as chair of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Ahn has faced criticism for attempting to ensure that President Yoon’s right to defense is fully protected, a decision that some see as ironic, though it may go deeper than mere irony.
 
Accounts from that tumultuous time suggest that some justices wrestled with concerns about national stability. “Even if the impeachment were rejected, the country would face chaos for a year until the next election. Would that be right? The thought was that it might be better for the nation to hold an election and restore stability sooner rather than later,” one justice reportedly reflected in the book “Impeachment: Inside and Out” (2019). It’s worth pondering what they think today.
 
What’s clear is that in 2016, there was a belief that Park's removal would help restore order. The Constitutional Court’s expedited process was deemed necessary at the time. However, Moon Jae-in’s administration’s subsequent campaign for “cleansing past evils” showed that stability wasn’t so easily achieved. Today, it’s apparent that while Yoon’s declaration of martial law was a grave mistake, the opposition party has also crossed lines, exacerbating divisions and heightening conflict as government institutions make polarizing choices.
 
How should the Constitutional Court approach this moment? Swift decision-making may not be the answer. Bae Bo-yoon’s 2018 observation remains relevant: “The court should have better informed the public of both sides of the impeachment debate. Citizens have a responsibility to understand the reasons for removing a president they elected.” The court must work to ensure its decisions are persuasive, fostering consensus rather than division. This requires exceptional wisdom and caution.
 
The extended suspension of presidential duties is a growing concern. Yet, the current chaos stems from the opposition Democratic Party’s ability to push the limits of power, potentially attempting to replace the acting president repeatedly. The Constitutional Court must address this first, rather than focusing solely on consolidating its own nine-judge panel.
 
The previous impeachment trial was relatively straightforward. This one is not. This time, the Constitutional Court itself stands on trial.
 
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
Log in to Twitter or Facebook account to connect
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
help-image Social comment?
s
lock icon

To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.

Standards Board Policy (0/250자)