Do not fuel confusion with self-serving interpretations of the Constitutional Court’s ruling on prime minister

Home > Opinion > Editorials

Do not fuel confusion with self-serving interpretations of the Constitutional Court’s ruling on prime minister

Published: 25 Mar. 2025, 00:00 Updated: 26 Mar. 2025, 17:33

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Police buses form walls in front of the the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 23. [YONHAP]

The Constitutional Court’s decision on the impeachment trial of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was not unanimous. In its ruling on Monday, the court announced that out of its eight justices, five (Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, Kim Hyung-du, Jeong Jeong-mi and Kim Bok-hyeong) voted to dismiss the case, one (Jeong Gye-seon) voted to uphold the impeachment, and two (Chung Hyung-sik and Cho Han-chang) dismissed it on procedural grounds.

While the mix of dismissal, rejection, and acceptance opinions may appear legally complex and confusing, the ruling has helped clarify some of the contentious issues that have plunged Korean society into division and turmoil since the Dec. 3 martial law crisis. It should be seen as a product of Korea's democratic system functioning as intended — a system that all members of society have agreed to abide by.

On the question of the quorum required for impeaching an acting president, six justices determined that the threshold should follow that for impeaching a prime minister, which is 151 votes in the National Assembly, rather than the higher bar set for impeaching a sitting president. As for the grounds for Han’s impeachment, five justices ruled that four of the charges against him did not constitute violations of the Constitution or the law. Regarding Han’s refusal to appoint a Constitutional Court justice, four justices deemed it unlawful while one did not. The lone judge who supported impeachment argued that Han’s failure to appoint a justice and his refusal to appoint a permanent special prosecutor for treason cases constituted violations severe enough to warrant removal from office.

An official from the conservative People Power Party, left, holds a sign calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol's reinstatement, while a member of the liberal Democratic Party, right, holds a sign calling for his removal from office in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on March 23. [JOONGANG ILBO]

The ruling did not address the legality of the Dec. 3 martial law declaration, despite widespread interest in whether it could serve as a bellwether for the upcoming impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol. The court merely stated that there was no evidence Han had taken active steps to legitimize the martial law declaration or had aided and abetted treason. This issue was covered in only a single page of the court’s 40-page ruling, effectively severing any direct connection between Han’s case and Yoon’s impeachment trial.

While the ruling provides material for various legal and political analyses, it is neither appropriate nor productive to use it to predict the outcome of Yoon’s impeachment trial. Attempting to twist the ruling to fit a particular narrative only fuels further division and confusion. Such reactions were already evident in street demonstrations Monday — pro-impeachment protesters claimed the court had issued the ruling to incite riots, while anti-impeachment protesters called for increased pressure on the court to shield the president. Political leaders must refrain from making premature assumptions or encouraging extreme protests through exaggerated interpretations of the ruling. To ensure a mature response to the forthcoming verdict on Yoon’s impeachment, the nation must take a measured and composed reaction to the Constitutional Court’s decision.

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