The Constitutional Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by the People Power Party regarding the act of the National Assembly Speaker announcing the impeachment motion against acting President Han Duck-soo passed by a majority of sitting members. Dismissal is a decision made when the requirements for a lawsuit are not met, and it does not proceed to trial.
On the 10th, the Constitutional Court made the dismissal decision in the lawsuit filed by 108 members of the People Power Party against National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik with a 6 to 2 opinion.
Previously, the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion against one acting President on Dec. 27 last year with 192 votes in favor out of 300 sitting members. In response, members of the People Power Party claimed that 'since they are acting in place of the president, the same two-thirds of sitting members’ majority required for a presidential impeachment motion should be necessary, but the National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik set the standard based on the 'majority of sitting members' required for the prime minister’s impeachment, thus infringing on their voting rights,' and they filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court.
For the Constitutional Court to review a lawsuit concerning jurisdiction, there must be a violation of the claimant's rights granted by the Constitution or laws, or a significant risk of such a violation.
On this day, six Constitutional Court justices stated in their dismissal opinion, 'According to the case record, most of the claimants (members of the People Power Party) protested verbally regarding the respondent (National Assembly Speaker)'s choice of voting quorum but did not participate in the procedure. Although the opportunity to freely participate in the voting process of the plenary session was guaranteed, unless they intentionally chose not to exercise that right and did not vote against, it cannot be considered that the claimants' rights to deliberation and voting were infringed upon.
However, Justices Jeong Hyeong-sik and Cho Han-chang stated in their dissenting opinion, 'I believe the (Speaker of the National Assembly's) act of announcing the passage infringed upon the claimants' rights to deliberation and voting.'
The two justices stated, 'The respondent (Speaker of the National Assembly) had a constitutional duty to ensure that ample opportunities for submission of opinions and inquiries and discussions related to the voting quorum were provided to members of the National Assembly during the voting process, and to seek ways to minimize conflicts and disputes through this.'