Home > Opinion > Columns

The Constitutional Court should reflect on itself

Published: 11 Feb. 2025, 00:01

Choi Min-woo

The author is the head of the political news department at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Following Jeon Han-gil, a star history lecturer-turned-conservative warrior, the latest figure gaining prominence within the right-wing camp is Constitutional Court Justice Jeong Hyeong-sik. During the recent impeachment trial, he skillfully pinpointed inconsistencies in the testimonies of Hong Jang-won, former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service, and Gwak Jong-geun, former commander of the Special Warfare Command. Under Justice Jeong’s sharp questioning, Hong was forced to acknowledge the flaws in his own memo, while Gwak admitted to inconsistencies in his terminology — alternating between references to personnel, agents and lawmakers. This has fueled speculation within the ruling bloc that the tables have turned and that President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment will be dismissed. But is that really the case?

Looking at Hong’s movements in the immediate aftermath of martial law, some circumstantial evidence suggests that he may have colluded with the Democratic Party (DP) for self-preservation. However, is there any decisive proof to overturn the arrest list he originally mentioned in the early days of martial law? If anything, the testimonies of former Police Chief Cho Ji-ho and the head of the counterintelligence division align more closely with Hong’s account. Similarly, while Gwak rushed to appear on the “Kim Byung-joo YouTube” channel, visibly emotional and mixing subjective interpretations with secondhand accounts, he has consistently testified that President Yoon ordered, “If the quorum isn’t met, remove those inside.” More significantly, it has been confirmed that the military was mobilized to the National Assembly and the National Election Commission — with Gwak explicitly stating that the deployment of troops to the election commission was a direct order from President Yoon. Proclamations and the establishment of emergency legislative bodies further suggest constitutional violations.

Given the substantial grounds for impeachment, the persistence of dismissal speculation is puzzling. Is it due to fake news? The maneuvering of far-right forces? The Constitutional Court itself has played a role in fueling these doubts. A prime example is the highly unusual handling of the impeachment trial of Lee Jin-sook, chair of the Korea Communications Commission (KCC), earlier this year.

Lee was impeached merely two days after taking office, in what was widely seen as a DP ploy to tighten its grip on MBC — a fact obvious to anyone. The party had signaled its intent to impeach her even before she took office. The Constitutional Court should have promptly unanimously dismissed the case, yet it delayed proceedings for over five months before narrowly dismissing it in a 4-4 deadlock. This was only possible because the four progressive justices voted in favor of impeachment.

Their primary argument? The “two-member system” at the KCC. But was it Lee’s doing? Wasn’t it the DP’s delay in recommending appointees that caused this situation? Moreover, the legality of the two-member system is unclear under the relevant laws. High-ranking officials, as seen in President Roh Moo-hyun’s impeachment case two decades ago, should only be removed for serious legal violations. If the KCC’s two-member system is unconstitutional, what about the six-member system that the Constitutional Court itself operated under until recently?

Despite the flimsy grounds for Lee’s impeachment, four out of eight justices still voted in favor. This has eroded trust in the court, with critics asking, "Has the court been compromised to this extent?" In response, some conservatives argue that if progressive justices are deciding along ideological lines, then conservative justices should also unify. Currently, the court is generally perceived as having five progressive justices — Moon Hyeong-bae, Lee Mi-seon, Jeong Gye-seon, Jeong Jeong-mi and Kim Hyeong-du — versus three conservatives: Jeong Hyeong-sik, Kim Bok-hyeong and Jo Han-chang. If this alignment holds in Yoon’s impeachment case, the result would be 5-3 in favor of impeachment — falling short of the six votes required for removal. This is the basis of the dismissal theory.

The controversy intensified with the forced appointment of Justice Ma Eun-hyuk. Even during Park Geun-hye’s impeachment eight years ago, the court proceeded with only eight justices. If there’s precedent, why the rush? Isn’t deciding Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s impeachment a more urgent matter? Naturally, suspicions have arisen that the progressive bloc is trying to add a sixth justice to secure the necessary votes. The Constitutional Court now finds itself at the heart of a high-stakes political battle.

It is regrettable that the court has become entangled in such turmoil. While efforts to intimidate justices are excessive, the court itself must reflect on whether it has contributed to these suspicions. At this critical juncture, it must focus solely on rigorous legal procedures. In last year’s hit Netflix drama “The Whirlwind,”(2024) a key line states: “An impeachment trial is both a political and public trial.” Now, more than ever, the Constitutional Court must restore its judicial integrity.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.