The Constitutional Court has to be flawless
Published: 14 Feb. 2025, 00:00
On Thursday, the Constitutional Court has concluded its eighth round of hearings on President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial and scheduled an additional session for Feb. 18. Today, the justices will deliberate on whether to summon Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and former National Intelligence Service First Deputy Director Hong Jang-won as witnesses. While the schedule for President Yoon's final argument has yet to be determined, legal experts anticipate a ruling from the court next month. The moment of historic judgment that could mark a turning point in modern Korean history is drawing closer.
Amid this critical juncture, attacks against the Constitutional Court continue. President Yoon's legal team warned Thursday that if the trial proceeds as it has so far, they "may be forced to make a grave decision." They claim that Yoon's right to defense is being compromised, citing the rejection of key witness requests and the court's acceptance of prosecution records as evidence. On the previous day, a sitting senior prosecutor criticized the court by invoking history, arguing that even under Japanese colonial rule, judges allowed independence fighter Ahn Jung-geun to present his full argument. His remarks resonated with Yoon’s supporters in the anti-impeachment camp. Meanwhile, some of the president's backers went so far as to file a police complaint over obscene material allegedly posted in an online forum associated with acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae’s high school alumni.
It is natural for the petitioner — the National Assembly — and the respondent — President Yoon — to present conflicting arguments, but distorting the essence of the trial must be avoided. During Thursday’s hearing, Col. Cho Sung-hyun, commander of the Capital Defense Command’s 1st Security Brigade, testified that his superior, Lt. Gen. Lee Jin-woo, had ordered troops to "enter the main parliamentary chamber and remove lawmakers." His statement aligned with the prosecution’s charges, diverging from Lee’s previous refusals to answer key questions. When Yoon’s legal team challenged the credibility of Cho’s testimony, Justice Chung Hyung-sik rebuked them, saying, "You cannot selectively frame statements to make them appear contradictory." Meanwhile, Yoon himself has contended that former NIS official Hong Jang-won, whose credibility has been questioned over his testimony on the arrests of lawmakers, had issues regarding his political neutrality.
As the trial nears its conclusion, there is a growing risk of exaggerated claims over minor details and baseless attacks on the Constitutional Court. Such tactics could undermine public acceptance of the final ruling and exacerbate national turmoil. Therefore, the court must make extraordinary efforts to minimize grievances regarding its procedures.
The court must impartially assess the shocking events of the Dec. 3 martial law crisis, the flood of allegations that followed and the shifting testimonies provided over time. To prevent the social unrest that could follow, the justices must strike a delicate balance between the administration’s protest that "a trial determining the fate of the nation should not be rushed with strict time constraints" and the National Assembly’s argument that "threats against the court and incitement of mob violence must be condemned." Restoring constitutional order demands the utmost wisdom from the justices at this pivotal moment.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
Amid this critical juncture, attacks against the Constitutional Court continue. President Yoon's legal team warned Thursday that if the trial proceeds as it has so far, they "may be forced to make a grave decision." They claim that Yoon's right to defense is being compromised, citing the rejection of key witness requests and the court's acceptance of prosecution records as evidence. On the previous day, a sitting senior prosecutor criticized the court by invoking history, arguing that even under Japanese colonial rule, judges allowed independence fighter Ahn Jung-geun to present his full argument. His remarks resonated with Yoon’s supporters in the anti-impeachment camp. Meanwhile, some of the president's backers went so far as to file a police complaint over obscene material allegedly posted in an online forum associated with acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae’s high school alumni.
It is natural for the petitioner — the National Assembly — and the respondent — President Yoon — to present conflicting arguments, but distorting the essence of the trial must be avoided. During Thursday’s hearing, Col. Cho Sung-hyun, commander of the Capital Defense Command’s 1st Security Brigade, testified that his superior, Lt. Gen. Lee Jin-woo, had ordered troops to "enter the main parliamentary chamber and remove lawmakers." His statement aligned with the prosecution’s charges, diverging from Lee’s previous refusals to answer key questions. When Yoon’s legal team challenged the credibility of Cho’s testimony, Justice Chung Hyung-sik rebuked them, saying, "You cannot selectively frame statements to make them appear contradictory." Meanwhile, Yoon himself has contended that former NIS official Hong Jang-won, whose credibility has been questioned over his testimony on the arrests of lawmakers, had issues regarding his political neutrality.
As the trial nears its conclusion, there is a growing risk of exaggerated claims over minor details and baseless attacks on the Constitutional Court. Such tactics could undermine public acceptance of the final ruling and exacerbate national turmoil. Therefore, the court must make extraordinary efforts to minimize grievances regarding its procedures.
The court must impartially assess the shocking events of the Dec. 3 martial law crisis, the flood of allegations that followed and the shifting testimonies provided over time. To prevent the social unrest that could follow, the justices must strike a delicate balance between the administration’s protest that "a trial determining the fate of the nation should not be rushed with strict time constraints" and the National Assembly’s argument that "threats against the court and incitement of mob violence must be condemned." Restoring constitutional order demands the utmost wisdom from the justices at this pivotal moment.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)