Constitutional Court to issue ruling on Prime Minister Han's impeachment on Monday

Home > National > Politics

Constitutional Court to issue ruling on Prime Minister Han's impeachment on Monday

Published: 20 Mar. 2025, 16:03 Updated: 20 Mar. 2025, 18:36

MICHAEL LEE
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lawmakers from the liberal Democratic Party hold up placards demanding President Yoon Suk Yeol's dismissal in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 20. They stand in front of posters calling on the court to reinstate the president. [YONHAP]

The Constitutional Court announced Thursday that it will issue its ruling on Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s impeachment at 10 a.m. on Monday, 87 days after he was suspended from his duties by the National Assembly.

The court said on the same day that it would not announce the date of its ruling on President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment this week.

However, observers believe the court’s decision on Han will likely offer clues regarding its judgment on Yoon, given that their cases are closely intertwined.

Han was impeached by the National Assembly, where the liberal Democratic Party (DP) holds 170 out of 300 total seats, on Dec. 27 last year over his refusal to appoint the legislature’s nominees for the nine-member Constitutional Court, which then had three vacancies.

At the time, Han was serving as the country’s acting president, stepping in for Yoon after he was impeached for his brief attempt to impose martial law on Dec. 3.

As at least six justices are required to support Yoon’s impeachment to remove him from office, the DP was concerned that a lone dissent could derail their efforts to oust him.

Two of the court’s vacancies were filled by acting President Choi Sang-mok four days after Han’s impeachment, but the ninth seat remains empty.

During the sole hearing of Han’s impeachment trial on Feb. 19, the Assembly’s lawyers called Han’s refusal to fill the vacancies a “reckless act that threw the nation into chaos.”

Han’s lawyers countered that the appointment of justices is the sole prerogative of the president or acting president under the Constitution and does not constitute grounds for impeachment.

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo delivers a public address at the government complex in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Dec. 26, 2024. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

The prime minister further cited the lack of bipartisan support for the legislature’s candidates as his main reason for not approving their nominations.

Although the court ruled on Feb. 27 that Choi infringed upon the Assembly’s constitutional right to fill three seats on its bench by not appointing Ma Eun-hyuk, a trial court judge backed by the DP, it also said it could not compel the acting president to approve Ma’s nomination.

The influence of this recent ruling on the court’s upcoming decision on Han's impeachment remains unclear.

In the past, the court has dismissed impeachment motions against officials accused of violating laws so long as it deemed their infractions were unintentional or not severe enough to justify dismissal.

Such was the case with former President Roh Moo-hyun, who was impeached in 2004 for violating a technical provision of the Constitution that mandates presidential impartiality.

The impeachment motion against Han also accused him of acquiescing to Yoon’s plan to impose martial law, among other allegations.

The prime minister, on the other hand, has repeatedly denied having any foreknowledge of Yoon’s decree.

Han’s suspension was opposed by the conservative People Power Party (PPP), which argued that the impeachment of an acting president, like that of a president, requires support from two-thirds of lawmakers.

However, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik sided with the DP’s argument that the 151-member quorum for impeaching all other officials was sufficient in Han’s case because the charges concerned his actions before he became acting president.

The court held a separate hearing to consider a petition filed by the PPP challenging the quorum for Han’s impeachment. Its ruling on Han’s case is thus likely to address this issue as well.

BY MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]