The Constitutional Court must not rush its ruling

Home > Opinion > Columns

print dictionary print

The Constitutional Court must not rush its ruling

Chung Un-chan
 
The author, a former president of Seoul National University, is the chair of the Korea Institute of Shared Growth. 
 
For over two months, the dark clouds of the Dec. 3 martial law declaration have loomed over Korean society. A global stature befitting an economic powerhouse aspiring to join the G8 has all but disappeared. The faces of the Korean people bear the weight of an economic downturn they can already feel, coupled with mounting uncertainties at home and abroad.
 
President Yoon Suk Yeol, a former prosecutor general, failed to adhere to proper legal procedures when declaring martial law. Ultimately, on Jan. 19, he was arrested on charges of insurrection and abuse of power. 
 
The situation has only deteriorated further as institutions such as the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and other judicial bodies — tasked with upholding fairness and justice — have instead eroded public trust through actions that defy both principles.
 
Impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol sits in a car on his way to Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi, after appearing for questioning at the Corruption Investigation Office of High-ranking Officials headquarters in Gwacheon on Jan. 15. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol sits in a car on his way to Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi, after appearing for questioning at the Corruption Investigation Office of High-ranking Officials headquarters in Gwacheon on Jan. 15. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

 
The CIO exposed both its legal overreach and incompetence by launching an investigation into a sitting president on charges of insurrection, despite lacking the authority to do so.
 
Meanwhile, the Seoul Western District Court became the center of controversy, with the predawn chaos surrounding its arrest warrant deliberations leading to the detention of dozens of young protesters.
 
These disturbing developments suggest a society veering toward dangerous extremes.
 
But what about the Constitutional Court, the final bulwark of the Constitution?
 
The impeachment process must be procedurally flawless, and President Yoon — now the respondent in the case — must be afforded full legal defense.
 
Just as Yoon violated the constitutional order when imposing martial law without proper procedure, the Constitutional Court must not repeat the same mistake by allowing procedural deficiencies in the impeachment process.
 
If recent allegations are true—that the Constitutional Court advised petitioners to remove insurrection charges from the impeachment complaint—then such actions would be deeply alarming and justifiably infuriating.
 
These concerns underscore why public trust in the Constitutional Court is faltering, despite the institution's critical role in adjudicating matters of national significance.
 
Some critics now question whether the court is rushing to issue a ruling, despite over 40 percent of the public opposing impeachment. Such doubts only fuel speculation about ulterior motives behind the court’s haste.
 
President Yoon Suk Yeol, left, speaks with his attorney during his impeachment trial hearing at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Jan. 23. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

President Yoon Suk Yeol, left, speaks with his attorney during his impeachment trial hearing at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Jan. 23. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

 
Public distrust and dissatisfaction with the judiciary continue to deepen.
 
Consider the Seoul Western District Court’s handling of Yoon’s arrest warrant compared to its decision on Democratic Party (DP) Chair Lee Jae-myung’s detention request last September.
 
When denying Lee’s arrest warrant, the judge provided a detailed explanation, stating that “given the need to protect the suspect’s right to defense and the relatively low risk of evidence tampering, it is difficult to justify pretrial detention, particularly as the suspect is a sitting party leader subject to public scrutiny.”
 
Yet, in President Yoon’s case, the court issued only a brief 15-character statement: “The suspect presents a risk of evidence destruction.” There was no elaboration on evidence tampering, the possibility of being a flight risk or the gravity of the charges — all critical factors in justifying pretrial detention.
 
This stark contrast highlights inconsistencies in judicial decision-making, particularly considering that Lee’s case had even passed a National Assembly motion authorizing his arrest.
 
The rule of law exists to ensure that deviations from social norms are addressed through a universal and logical framework rooted in fairness. The judiciary, as a state-sanctioned institution, must embody this objectivity and impartiality.
 
Regardless of whether the Constitutional Court upholds or rejects the impeachment motion, if the process lacks procedural legitimacy and fails to align with principles of fairness, its justices will not be spared from the judgment of history.
 
Now, public attention is shifting to Lee Jae-myung’s various legal battles, including cases involving election law violations, witness tampering, the Daejang-dong land development scandal and illicit payments to North Korea.
 
The presidency — once the face of the nation — has already suffered an unprecedented collapse in dignity, and the authority of the National Assembly has long been in decline. The CIO, as well as the Constitutional Court and lower courts, risk further eroding their credibility by straying from principles of fairness and justice.
 
Lee Jae-myung, center, leader of the liberal Democratic Party (DP), speaks during a Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Feb. 3. [YONHAP]

Lee Jae-myung, center, leader of the liberal Democratic Party (DP), speaks during a Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Feb. 3. [YONHAP]

 
If Lee’s trial drags on indefinitely, and a presidential election is held amid ongoing legal disputes, the judiciary may find itself engulfed in a crisis beyond its control. Both the protracted legal proceedings involving the opposition leader and the chaos triggered by the martial law crisis must be swiftly and fairly resolved through principles of justice and impartiality.
 
President Yoon must fully disclose the reasons and procedures behind his martial law declaration, and he must not attempt to shift blame onto subordinates.
 
Even if his approval ratings rise, this does not absolve him of the catastrophic damage inflicted on Korea’s global standing and national interests due to his unilateral declaration of martial law.
 
The CIO, prosecutors and investigative agencies must uphold political neutrality, refraining from actions that invite suspicions of bias, and must base their investigations solely on evidence and the law. The judiciary must restore public trust by ensuring due process and delivering judgments that uphold justice, thereby reaffirming its role as the guardian of national integrity.
 
The impeachment and detention of a sitting president for violating constitutional procedures in declaring martial law have once again laid bare the fundamental flaws in Korea’s political system. It is time for a serious national conversation about constitutional reform.
 
Some argue that constitutional amendments should wait until after a new presidential election. They are wrong.
 
“Reform first, election later” is the correct path forward.
 
Alternatively, we must consider conducting constitutional reform and the presidential election simultaneously. Moreover, both the ruling and opposition parties must adopt a unified stance on economic and foreign policy — areas where bipartisan consensus is critical. 
  
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)