The Constitutional Court's decision on whether to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol will be announced on the 4th at 11 a.m. It has been 111 days since the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion against President Yoon on Dec. 14 of last year.
Beginning on Jan. 14, the Constitutional Court held 11 hearings. The key issues are fivefold. During the proceedings, the National Assembly's impeachment representatives and President Yoon's side made opposing claims regarding ▲ the requirements for declaring martial law ▲ the constitutionality and legality of the proclamation ▲ attempts to block or dissolve the National Assembly ▲ operation of a political arrest team ▲ attempts to control the election commission. The final judgment of the Constitutional Court is expected to focus on these five major issues.
The Constitutional Court will conclude with one of the following judgments: 'accept', 'dismiss', or 'terminate'. To issue an acceptance ruling that immediately removes the president, six or more justices must agree. This reflects the court's judgment that President Yoon has seriously violated the Constitution and laws, causing him to lose the public's trust and showing no intention to uphold the Constitution.
◇ Did the conditions for declaring martial law meet on Dec. 3?
The National Assembly claims that President Yoon declared a state of emergency that does not meet constitutional requirements as grounds for impeachment. Article 77, Section 1 of the Constitution states, 'The president may declare martial law in accordance with the law during a state of national emergency equivalent to war or insurrection.' The National Assembly pointed out that there was no state of emergency sufficient to declare martial law on Dec. 3 of last year.
On the other hand, President Yoon's side noted, "It was a situation equivalent to a state of national emergency due to the Democratic Party's excessive impeachment and budget cuts, which paralyzed the executive and judiciary." They further argued that martial law is an act of governance and therefore not subject to judicial review.
Both sides hold different views on whether the Cabinet meeting held prior to the declaration of martial law adhered to legal requirements. The National Assembly stated, "All Cabinet members must sign the martial law declaration and minutes must be recorded, but this was not done." However, President Yoon's side argued that "the Cabinet members gathered with the understanding that they were holding a Cabinet meeting, and in an emergency situation like martial law, signing is a secondary issue."
◇ Is the 'ban on political activities' proclamation unconstitutional?
Proclamation No. 1, which was released after the declaration of martial law, states, 'All political activities, including those of the National Assembly, local councils, political parties, assemblies, and protests, are prohibited.' The National Assembly claims that the proclamation infringes upon the freedoms of political activity, press, and medical professions guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, Article 77 of the Constitution states, 'While the authority of the government or courts may be restricted when martial law is declared, the authority of the National Assembly cannot be limited.'
President Yoon's side does not deny the potential illegality of Proclamation No. 1. In a response submitted to the Constitutional Court, they stated that "(former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun) simply copied an example from when the president had the authority to dissolve the National Assembly," and said it was a matter of negligence regarding the phrasing. They argue that the contents of the proclamation were merely symbolic and there was no intention to enforce it.
During the fourth hearing on Jan. 23, President Yoon asked former Minister Kim, who appeared as a witness, "The proclamation has many legal issues to address, but in any case, martial law is hard to maintain for more than a day, so since the national emergency was caused by a dictatorship in the National Assembly, the proclamation is abstract but symbolic. Even though it violates regulations and lacks specific content and enforceability, let's just leave it as it is. Do you remember this?" Former Minister Kim replied, "I remember now that you mentioned it."
◇ Did the president attempt to block the National Assembly to prevent lifting martial law?
It has also become an issue whether President Yoon blocked the National Assembly and tried to pull out lawmakers to prevent the lifting of martial law. Article 77 of the Constitution states, 'If the National Assembly requests the lifting of martial law with a majority of its members present, the president must lift the martial law.'
According to the prosecution's indictment of President Yoon for leading a rebellion, it was stated that he called former Major General Lee Jin-woo and former General Kwak Jong-geun just before the National Assembly was about to vote on the lifting of martial law, instructing them to "pull out the lawmakers."
The National Assembly's position is that it was 'unconstitutional and illegal' to invade the constitutional institution and block the activities of the National Assembly. Former General Kwak Jong-geun, who appeared as a witness, stated that he received instructions from President Yoon to "quickly break down the National Assembly's doors and pull out the people inside."
In contrast, President Yoon's side argues, "Military and police forces were deployed due to concerns about safety problems arising from citizens gathering." They also mentioned that if they had truly intended to block the National Assembly, they would have deployed more troops. Additionally, they pointed out that the National Assembly was not blocked, and the motion to lift martial law was quickly passed.
◇ Will the operation of the political arrest team be recognized?
The indictment also includes allegations that President Yoon attempted to form an arrest team to capture National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, and former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon. Former National Intelligence Service Director Hong Jang-won testified on Feb. 4, stating, "I wrote down a list of about ten arrests from former Counterintelligence Chief Yeo In-hyung."
However, President Yoon's side maintains that the memo from former Director Hong is false. National Intelligence Service Director Cho Tae-yong stated during the hearings on Feb. 13 that "the 'Hong Jang-won memo' is a lie." They cited discrepancies in the place, method, and type of memo after checking with the aide who formalized the memo and CCTV. Former Seoul Police Chief Kim Bong-sik also stated, "I have never received concrete orders regarding the arrest of lawmakers." Former Chief Yeo In-hyung noted, "There are many things to clarify regarding former Director Hong in the criminal trial."
◇ Was there legitimacy in deploying troops to the election commission?
President Yoon also acknowledges the deployment of military forces to the National Election Commission on the day of the martial law declaration. However, he emphasizes that the purpose was to confirm allegations of election fraud. The National Assembly argues that the claims of election fraud are conspiracy theories. They assert that deploying military forces to the election commission, a constitutional entity, is illegal regardless of the reason.