Yoon ruling hinges on how serious justices view five charges

Home > National > Politics

Yoon ruling hinges on how serious justices view five charges

Published: 02 Apr. 2025, 19:02 Updated: 02 Apr. 2025, 19:41

MICHAEL LEE
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

The eight justices of the Constitutional Court bow before taking their seats at the 11th and final hearing of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 25. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

In their upcoming ruling on President Yoon Suk Yeol’s fate, the eight justices of the Constitutional Court are expected to weigh in on how they view the charges brought against him by the National Assembly's impeachment motion.

How seriously they regard each of the allegations will likely decide if the court will ultimately rule to dismiss Yoon from office or reinstate him.

The five charges laid out by the liberal Democratic Party (DP), which spearheaded the impeachment motion, accuse Yoon of violating the Constitution and overstepping his executive powers by declaring martial law on Dec. 3.

They include accusations that Yoon declared martial law in violation of laws governing its use, issued a martial law decree that violated constitutional principles, attempted to unlawfully prevent lawmakers from overturning his decree, illegally sent troops to the offices of the National Election Commission (NEC) and ordered the arrest of prominent politicians and members of the judiciary.

Throughout his seven-week impeachment trial, Yoon and his legal team have denied all allegations, asserting that his actions were justified under the circumstances.

The National Assembly’s charge that Yoon disregarded constitutional provisions governing martial law is central to the case. Under the Constitution, martial law can only be declared in “national emergencies, such as war or large-scale disaster.”

However, Yoon’s defense team argued that the situation at the time — marked by his escalating conflict with the DP-led Assembly — was severe enough to justify declaring martial law. Yoon’s lawyers also maintained that the authority to declare martial law is a presidential prerogative beyond the scope of judicial review.

The Assembly also accused Yoon of convening a Cabinet meeting improperly before issuing the martial law decree. Yoon’s lawyers countered that the meeting essentially complied with the requirements set out in the Martial Law Act, even if it was procedurally flawed.

President Yoon Suk Yeol, right, delivers his closing statement at the 11th and final hearing of his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 25. [CONSTITUTIONAL COURT]

Another key element in the impeachment motion is the accusation that Yoon’s martial law decree, which imposed restrictions on political activities and media freedom, was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers and civil rights.

However, Yoon claimed the decree was drafted by his former defense minister, Kim Yong-hyun, and intended as a “warning” to the public about the threat posed by “anti-state forces,” not as an actual attempt to suppress his political opposition and legislature.

A particularly contentious issue in the case concerns Yoon’s alleged attempts to block members of the National Assembly from gathering to overturn his decree.

In its impeachment motion, the Assembly accused Yoon of sending police to seal off the legislative building and ordering the military to physically remove lawmakers from the chamber in the early hours of Dec. 4.

Rep. Jung Chung-rae, leader of the National Assembly's impeachment committee, takes his seat at the start of the 11th and final hearing of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment hearing at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 25. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Yoon denied these allegations, claiming that the police and military presence at the legislature was solely intended to maintain order and public safety during unrest.

Yoon also denied accusations that he had sent troops to the NEC’s offices to seize control of the commission. He argued that their deployment was part of an operation to inspect the NEC’s servers for signs of external interference in the country’s elections.

Further, Yoon rejected claims that he had ordered the arrest of lawmakers, reporters and judges as part of a broader crackdown on political dissent. He specifically denied ordering former Defense Counterintelligence Commander Yeo In-hyung to detain these individuals, as the impeachment motion alleged.

Whether the court rules to remove or reinstate Yoon will not hinge on the number of charges it upholds; rather, it depends on whether the justices believe the president’s actions “deprives him of the democratic legitimacy endowed in him by the people,” a standard set by the court during the 2004 impeachment trial of former President Roh Moo-hyun.

In Roh’s case, the court found that he had violated the Constitution on two of the four impeachment charges brought against him by the Assembly, but ruled that these infractions were not significant enough to justify his removal from office.

By contrast, the court ruled to remove former President Park Geun-hye from office in 2017 despite upholding only one out of four charges against her.

In that decision, the court ruled this single violation — giving her confidant Choi Soon-sil a role in state affairs and disregarding guidelines on state secrets — was severe enough to warrant her dismissal.

BY MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]