Ma Eun-hyuk’s participation in impeachment trial a risky move
Published: 28 Feb. 2025, 00:00
The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that acting President Choi Sang-mok’s inaction in appointing Constitutional Court Justice nominee Ma Eun-hyuk constitutes an infringement on the National Assembly’s authority to form the Constitutional Court. The decision was unanimous among the eight justices. While the ruling does not compel Choi to appoint Ma, it does allow the court to resolve several ongoing disputes.
In its ruling, the court stated, “If the president refuses to appoint a candidate duly elected by the National Assembly without just cause, citing appointment authority, it undermines the Assembly’s constitutional power to form the Constitutional Court and cannot be permitted.” It further clarified that “the same applies to the acting president,” signaling a call for Choi to proceed with the appointment. However, the situation remains unpredictable, as Choi has only indirectly stated that he “respects the court’s decision,” indicating that he may not make the appointment immediately.
Should Choi refrain from appointing Ma, the Constitutional Court will continue to operate with eight justices. The National Assembly had also petitioned the court to directly order Choi to appoint Ma, but the court dismissed the request, ruling that such an order falls outside the scope of its authority in a constitutional dispute.
Public interest in Ma’s appointment is particularly high because it could directly or indirectly influence both the timing and outcome of the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol. The ruling People Power Party (PPP) criticized the court’s decision as “tolerating legislative dictatorship,” while the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) welcomed it, calling on Choi to “immediately appoint Ma.” Yoon’s defense team claimed that the court’s ruling was a ploy to “secure the votes needed for impeachment.”
Opinions are sharply divided on whether the priority should be restoring a nine-justice panel or proceeding with the ruling under the current eight-member composition. Some argue that a full bench would enhance the court’s legitimacy, while others counter that since all hearings have already been conducted, there is no reason to delay the ruling.
If Ma is appointed before the court delivers its verdict on Yoon’s case, the justices must first determine whether he should participate in the decision. Since Ma would not have been involved in the previous proceedings, his participation would require reopening the hearings, potentially delaying the ruling beyond its original timeline. Given the national turmoil, such a move could create further controversy.
Ultimately, the most critical factor is the court’s final judgment. Respecting the court’s ruling is essential, and the court itself must ensure the legitimacy of its decision. Acting President Choi should actively consider appointing Ma in accordance with the court’s ruling, while the justices must carefully conclude the ongoing process. Now, more than ever, it is crucial to establish a framework where all parties can accept the outcome with legitimacy and justification.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
In its ruling, the court stated, “If the president refuses to appoint a candidate duly elected by the National Assembly without just cause, citing appointment authority, it undermines the Assembly’s constitutional power to form the Constitutional Court and cannot be permitted.” It further clarified that “the same applies to the acting president,” signaling a call for Choi to proceed with the appointment. However, the situation remains unpredictable, as Choi has only indirectly stated that he “respects the court’s decision,” indicating that he may not make the appointment immediately.
Should Choi refrain from appointing Ma, the Constitutional Court will continue to operate with eight justices. The National Assembly had also petitioned the court to directly order Choi to appoint Ma, but the court dismissed the request, ruling that such an order falls outside the scope of its authority in a constitutional dispute.
Public interest in Ma’s appointment is particularly high because it could directly or indirectly influence both the timing and outcome of the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol. The ruling People Power Party (PPP) criticized the court’s decision as “tolerating legislative dictatorship,” while the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) welcomed it, calling on Choi to “immediately appoint Ma.” Yoon’s defense team claimed that the court’s ruling was a ploy to “secure the votes needed for impeachment.”
Opinions are sharply divided on whether the priority should be restoring a nine-justice panel or proceeding with the ruling under the current eight-member composition. Some argue that a full bench would enhance the court’s legitimacy, while others counter that since all hearings have already been conducted, there is no reason to delay the ruling.
If Ma is appointed before the court delivers its verdict on Yoon’s case, the justices must first determine whether he should participate in the decision. Since Ma would not have been involved in the previous proceedings, his participation would require reopening the hearings, potentially delaying the ruling beyond its original timeline. Given the national turmoil, such a move could create further controversy.
Ultimately, the most critical factor is the court’s final judgment. Respecting the court’s ruling is essential, and the court itself must ensure the legitimacy of its decision. Acting President Choi should actively consider appointing Ma in accordance with the court’s ruling, while the justices must carefully conclude the ongoing process. Now, more than ever, it is crucial to establish a framework where all parties can accept the outcome with legitimacy and justification.
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)