After record deliberation, President Yoon's impeachment ruling set for April 4

Home > National > Politics

After record deliberation, President Yoon's impeachment ruling set for April 4

Published: 01 Apr. 2025, 17:59 Updated: 02 Apr. 2025, 08:33

MICHAEL LEE
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

President Yoon Suk Yeol greets supporters outside the Seoul Detention Center in Uiwang, Gyeonggi, on March 8 after his release. [YONHAP]

NEWS ANALYSIS

The Constitutional Court announced Tuesday that it will issue its ruling on President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment at 11 a.m. on Friday, April 4, 111 days since he was suspended from office.

The announcement, which was made through a press release, also said that television and media crews will be allowed to broadcast the ruling live.

Yoon was impeached by the National Assembly on Dec. 14 for his brief imposition of martial law 11 days earlier.

At least six of the court’s eight justices must vote to uphold Yoon’s impeachment to effect his removal. As such, he would be reinstated even if a majority of five justices support his impeachment.

Should the court rule to dismiss Yoon, an election to choose his successor must take place within 60 days.

But if Yoon is reinstated, domestic political turmoil would likely deepen.

According to the latest survey by Gallup Korea released last Friday, six out of 10 Koreans want to see the president removed.

Over half also said they want the government to change hands from Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP) to the liberal Democratic Party (DP), which already controls 170 seats in the 300-member National Assembly.

Massive rallies for and against his removal in the capital and other cities across the country have escalated as the Constitutional Court unexpectedly delayed announcing the date of its verdict.

A rally against President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment took place at the southern end of Gwanghwamun Square in central Seoul, left, as a rally in favor of his removal from office took place at the northern end on March 22. [NEWS1]

In addition to impeachment, Yoon is also undergoing a criminal trial on insurrection charges tied to his martial law declaration.

He was detained on Jan. 15 but released from jail on March 8 after a Seoul court found that prosecutors had indicted him after the expiry of his arrest warrant.

That surprising development emboldened calls from Yoon’s supporters for the Constitutional Court to reinstate him, though his criminal proceedings have little bearing on his impeachment ruling.

Yoon’s suspension is the longest ever for a Korean president.

The court’s judgment will come 38 days after the final hearing of Yoon’s trial on Feb. 25. The court’s justices have held deliberations on Yoon’s case almost daily since his trial concluded.

By contrast, the court’s decision to reinstate former President Roh Moo-hyun in 2004 came just 14 days after the conclusion of his trial and 63 days after his impeachment.

The court’s decision to remove former President Park Geun-hye from office in 2017 was delivered only 11 days after her trial ended and 91 days after the Assembly suspended her.

Yoon’s verdict date is therefore well past the mid-March time frame that most observers had expected.

Police buses form barricades along boths sides of the road leading up to the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on April 1. The court is located in the far left of this photo. [YONHAP]

While the court’s deliberations took place in strict secrecy, constitutional law experts who spoke to the Korea JoongAng Daily said disagreements between the justices were likely the main cause of the ruling’s delay.

“The main impeachment charges are not controversial, factually speaking,” said Yi Zoon-il, a professor of constitutional law at Korea University. “As such, we can only guess that the decision was held up by justices who wanted to thoroughly review different points of contention.”

Chang Young-soo, another professor of constitutional law at Korea University, also attributed the long wait for Yoon’s impeachment ruling to a possible divide within the court’s bench.

“The reason why many speculate that the justices are divided 5-3 is because this split could have been easily overcome with the appointment of another justice voting in favor of impeachment,” he said, referring to Ma Eun-hyuk, the DP’s pick to fill the last remaining vacancy on the court’s nine-member bench.

Ma’s nomination was first rejected by acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo on Dec. 26 and again five days later by Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok, who served as the country’s interim leader during Han’s own impeachment on charges of acting as Yoon’s “accomplice.”

Chang also noted that the court is under great pressure to rule on Yoon’s impeachment soon, as the terms of acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae and Justice Lee Mi-son are due to expire on April 18.

Though many expected the Constitutional Court to give some clues regarding its approach to Yoon’s case in its March 24 ruling on Han, that decision actually made very little reference to Yoon’s martial law bid.

Yi said the justices “likely avoided discussing the legality or illegality of the martial law decree in their verdict on Han because people could then guess the direction of their ruling on Yoon’s case.”

He added that the court’s decision to reinstate Han nonetheless “hinted that the justices might not regard the decree as lawful” as it determined the prime minister was “not involved in the martial law plan.”

President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the 10th hearing of impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 20. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Another possible factor in the lag between Yoon’s last impeachment hearing and the upcoming verdict is the sheer amount of evidence submitted during his seven-week trial, which saw 16 witnesses testify over 11 hearings, including Yoon himself.

Unlike in Park’s trial, witnesses who testified during Yoon’s impeachment proceedings contradicted each other on several significant aspects of his 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.

Their upcoming ruling is also likely to address whether Yoon’s actions were intentional violations of the Korean constitutional order, as the court previously established that a president’s motives should be taken into account when determining whether their actions warrant removal from office.

In Roh’s case, the court ruled that his open support for the liberal Uri Party did not constitute a deliberate breach of his constitutional duty to remain impartial.

By contrast, Park was removed from office after the justices found sufficient evidence that she had betrayed public trust and undermined the rule of law through corruption and abuse of power.

During Yoon’s trial, the Assembly’s legal team accused him of violating the constitutional order by unlawfully suspending all political and parliamentary activities, as well as ordering troops to enforce his decree.

Yoon, however, claimed he intended his declaration of martial law to serve as a warning to the Korean public about the dangers posed by what he described as “antistate forces” that he blamed for the country’s political gridlock. He also claimed that external actors had interfered in the 2024 general election, which the Democratic Party won by a landslide.