Home > Opinion > Columns

A ruling that leaves no room for imperial dreams

Published: 19 Jan. 2026, 00:02

Kim Sung-tak

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol posed a pointed question in his final statement during his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court last February.

“If I were an imperial president,” he asked, “would the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials, the police and the prosecution all rush to investigate me? Would an agency without jurisdiction over insurrection charges go as far as shopping for warrants and forging official documents to arrest me?”

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol leaves the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, Seoul, on the afternoon of Jan. 16 after being sentenced to five years in prison in a first-instance ruling on charges including obstructing an arrest and infringing on Cabinet members’ right to deliberation. [SCREEN CAPTURE FROM VIDEO PROVIDED BY SEOUL CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT]

Yoon argued that Korea was living not under an imperial presidency but in an era of an “imperial opposition,” blaming what he called the excesses of a then-dominant opposition, the Democratic Party, for his declaration of martial law. He insisted it was a “message to the people,” not a power grab. In criminal proceedings as well, he repeatedly claimed that determining whether an emergency exists and whether martial law is necessary falls within the president’s broad discretion and political judgment.

Yoon even cited the post-1987 system of direct presidential elections as a source of legitimacy for his actions. Presidential elections, he argued, draw the longest campaigns and the greatest public attention, giving a directly elected president a democratic mandate heavier than that of any other officeholder. Any attempt to oust such a president, he said, amounted to an assault on the constitutional order of liberal democracy. Even if the procedures or requirements for declaring martial law were unconstitutional or unlawful, Yoon maintained, the issue was political accountability, not something for courts to judge.

The first criminal ruling against him, handed down on Friday, took a very different view.

The Criminal Division 35 of the Seoul Central District Court convicted Yoon, focusing on his order at the Hannam-dong presidential residence, instructing Presidential Security Service officials to block the execution of an arrest warrant. The court found that he had “used security service officials to obstruct the lawful execution of a warrant by investigative authorities or to attempt the destruction of evidence,” effectively turning public servants loyal to the Republic of Korea into “private soldiers” to protect his personal safety and interests.

The ruling underscored a basic constitutional principle: public officials owe their loyalty to the state, not to the president as an individual. In rejecting any notion akin to “the state is me,” the court drew a clear line against treating the presidency as an imperial office.

On Yoon’s claim that declaring martial law lay squarely within presidential authority, the court emphasized responsibility rather than discretion. It ruled that exercising extraordinary emergency powers such as martial law heightens the need to notify all Cabinet members and convene a State Council meeting, precisely to prevent abuse. On that basis, it found him guilty of infringing on ministers’ right to deliberate.

The court also diverged sharply from Yoon’s argument that the president merely exercises authority delegated by sovereign citizens. As the nation’s highest public official, it held, the president bears greater responsibility, not less. On charges including the creation and destruction of false official documents, the court stated that a president has a duty above all others to uphold the Constitution and legal order. Instead, Yoon was found to have shown a disregard for constitutionally mandated procedures, a stance “deserving of condemnation.”

The implications of this first-instance ruling extend well beyond Yoon himself. They are a reminder for the current administration under President Lee Jae Myung, whose party commands an overwhelming parliamentary majority, as well as for all future presidents.

Nearly four decades have passed since the 1987 democratic transition, yet Korea remains trapped in a confrontational two-party system. Elections are fiercely contested over who occupies the presidency, while durable national solutions remain elusive. When the ruling party dominates the legislature, fears of imperial power resurface. When the opposition holds a majority, legislative gridlock and policy paralysis become the norm.

Every presidential election season, politicians across the aisle speak of decentralization and constitutional reform. Once in office, those pledges tend to fade. President Lee campaigned on promises of a more decentralized constitutional order, but since taking office has yet to present a concrete roadmap.

As the abrupt declaration of martial law demonstrated, Korean democracy still carries the risk of sudden, unforeseen crises. That reality makes this ruling particularly significant. It offers an opportunity to clarify the limits of presidential authority and to push Korea’s presidential system toward a more mature stage, one grounded not in personal power but in constitutional responsibility.

Whether that opportunity is seized will depend on whether political leaders and the public alike take the court’s message seriously: the presidency is not, and cannot be, an imperial throne.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.