Home > National > Politics

Constitutional Court dismisses PPP's adjudication request against Assembly Speaker Woo

Published: 10 Apr. 2025, 17:26

National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik speaks during a press conference to suggest constitutional reform at the parliament in western Seoul on April 6. [NEWS1]

The Constitutional Court on Thursday dismissed an adjudication request filed by conservative People Power Party (PPP) lawmakers against National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, who they claimed infringed upon their rights during the impeachment proceedings of acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo.

The court reached its decision with a 6—2 vote on Thursday, ruling that there was no substantial infringement on the lawmakers’ rights to deliberate and vote on the impeachment motion.

“The quorum required for the impeachment of the Acting President and Prime Minister is ultimately a matter of interpreting Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, not an issue to be resolved by parliamentary deliberation or voting,” said the court in its majority opinion.

On Dec. 27, the National Assembly passed an impeachment motion against Han. At the time, Han was serving as acting President following the impeachment of former President Yoon.

Before the vote to impeach Han, Woo said the motion would pass if approved by a simple majority of those present, as Han was the prime minister, not the president. The parliament passed the impeachment motion with 192 votes out of 300 members present.

Acting President Han Duck-soo on a phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump on April 8 [PRIME MINISTER'S SECRETARIAT]

However, the PPP argued that the impeachment motion’s passage was invalid, claiming it required the approval of more than two-thirds of the members present — or 200 votes — since Han was serving as acting president.

The court said that while it is true that the final interpretation rests with the Constitutional Court, it is difficult to conclude that the petitioners' rights to deliberate and vote were infringed.

“According to the case records, most of the petitioners protested verbally against the quorum decision made by the respondent but did not participate in the procedure,” said the court. “Even though they were guaranteed the opportunity to freely participate in the plenary vote, they chose not to exercise that right or vote in opposition.

“Therefore, it cannot be said that their rights to deliberate and vote were violated.”

A dismissal decision from the Constitutional Court indicates that the request failed to meet the formal legal requirements for adjudication, regardless of its merits. This differs from a decision of rejection or acceptance, which is made after substantive review.

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

BY BAE JAE-SUNG [[email protected]]