Political unease builds as Constitutional Court remains mum on Yoon verdict

Home > National > Politics

Political unease builds as Constitutional Court remains mum on Yoon verdict

Published: 12 Mar. 2025, 19:24 Updated: 13 Mar. 2025, 04:33

MICHAEL LEE
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lawmakers from the liberal Democratic Party lead a march calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol's removal from office in front of Gwanghwamun Gate in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 12. [YONHAP]

The Constitutional Court remained silent regarding the timing of its verdict on President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment on Wednesday, leaving the country in a protracted state of political uncertainty.

More than two weeks have passed since the final hearing of the trial, and the delay has prompted growing speculation about the reasons behind it.

Tensions have risen dramatically in the interim, with both the liberal Democratic Party (DP) and the conservative People Power Party (PPP) intensifying pressure on the court to either dismiss or reinstate the president.

The Constitutional Court has historically issued rulings on presidential impeachments within two weeks. Its previous decisions on former presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye came just 14 and 11 days after their trials concluded.

But as the wait for its verdict on Yoon’s impeachment stretches on, the court’s silence is only fueling anxiety on both sides.

Observers had expected the court to issue a ruling on Yoon by Friday, March 14, a little over two weeks since the last hearing of his trial on Feb. 25.

However, that possibility became more remote after the court announced Tuesday that it would instead deliver a decision regarding the impeachment of three prosecutors and the chief of the Board of Audit and Inspection on Thursday.

Except for one streak in 1995, the court has never issued rulings on consecutive days, rendering a decision on Yoon’s impeachment unlikely before the end of the week.

One possible factor in the lag between the last hearing and the upcoming verdict is the sheer amount of evidence submitted during Yoon’s trial, which lasted seven weeks and saw 16 witnesses testify before the court.

Unlike in Park’s trial, witnesses who testified during Yoon’s impeachment proceedings contradicted each other on several significant aspects of his Dec. 3 martial law decree, such as whether he ordered the arrest of high-profile politicians or commanded special forces to drag lawmakers out from the National Assembly.

The trial concluded without resolving these discrepancies, leaving it up to justices to weigh the validity of conflicting claims.

Central to their deliberations is whether Yoon’s actions were intentional violations of the Korean constitutional order, according to legal experts.

Former President Roh was reinstated after the court ruled that his election law violations were not deliberate breaches of his constitutional duty to remain impartial.

By contrast, Park was removed from office because justices found sufficient grounds to believe she had betrayed public trust and undermined the rule of law through corruption and abuse of power.

While a court official recently denied that unanimity is required among the eight justices before they issue a decision, observers believe their ongoing discussions are likely aimed at minimizing disagreements.

To uphold a president’s impeachment, at least six of the eight justices must concur, but a vote to decide on a verdict only takes place if consensus remains elusive.

Rep. Na Kyung-won, second from left, and other lawmakers from the conservative People Power Party enter the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 12 to submit a petition calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol's reinstatement. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

As the court continues its deliberations, both major political parties are escalating their calls for a ruling in their favor.

The DP, which has championed Yoon’s impeachment, has promised daily protests following his release from detention over the weekend.

At a Wednesday rally in the Gwanghwamun area of central Seoul, DP leader Lee Jae-myung warned that a verdict reinstating Yoon would set an “intolerable” precedent.

“Wouldn’t such a decision send a message that the president could declare martial law at any time without just cause?” Lee said, condemning Yoon’s decree as an affront to the country’s hard-won democracy.

Lee accused the PPP of enabling what he characterized as Yoon’s attempt to “destroy the constitutional order” and warned that the president’s reinstatement would pave the way for the return of military rule.

He also claimed that those involved in Yoon’s martial law bid intended to execute “a Korean version of the Killing Fields,” referencing the mass atrocities carried out by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the late 1970s.

Meanwhile, a group of 82 PPP lawmakers led by Rep. Na Kyung-won submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court on Wednesday calling for Yoon’s reinstatement.

The petition argued that the National Assembly’s impeachment motion against Yoon was rendered invalid because its legal team dropped the charge of insurrection at the beginning of his trial.

The lawmakers contended that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate claims that Yoon had incited an insurrection.

They also argued that even if the justices found his martial law decree violated the Constitution, they should dismiss the impeachment motion due to the DP’s dominance in the National Assembly, which they decried as a form of “parliamentary tyranny.”

BY MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]