Justice appointment will legitimize procedure for impeachment ruling
Acting President Choi Sang-mok on Tuesday appointed two justices of the Constitutional Court. They are Jung Gye-seon nominated by the opposition Democratic Party of Korea and Cho Han-chang nominated by the ruling People Power Party.
Choi deferred the appointment of Ma Eun-hyeok, another Democratic Party nominee, until the rival parties agree on the third nominee. The ruling party argued that one of three nominees should be a person whom both parties agree on, as custom dictates. The opposition party argued that it is qualified to nominate two justices, citing its large majority, and unilaterally pushed through their nominations, ignoring ruling party lawmakers' concerns about Ma's left-leaning background.
It seems that by appointing justices evenhandedly for both main parties, Choi was going to prevent further impeachment by the opposition party while maintaining the government position that consensus between the parties is needed to appoint justices nominated by the legislature.
The Democratic Party, which controls the National Assembly with its large majority, impeached acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo shortly after he said he would postpone appointing the justices until the parties agree on whether an acting president is qualified to appoint Constitutional Court justices. Deputy Prime Minister Choi filled in for Han as acting president.
The appointment of two nominees set the court free from its tricky six-justice situation, which lasted for 75 days. Though a seat is still vacant, the appointment cleared the biggest obstacle to its trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment. Now eight justices will be able to try the case as in 2016, when eight justices upheld former President Park Geun-hye's impeachment. Under the Constitutional Court law, seven or more justices are needed for the court to hear an impeachment case and six or more are needed to uphold impeachment. Yoon needs three or more justices to object to his impeachment to get back into office.
No matter what decision the Constitutional Court makes, it has boosted at least procedural legitimacy to some extent. Its trials of major cases are also expected to gain speed. Thirteen impeachment cases involving Yoon, Han, chief of the national police agency and prosecutors are pending in the court. Experts say that it is theoretically possible for six justices to hear presidential impeachment, but a conclusion to be reached that way will likely be embroiled in controversies over its procedural legitimacy.
Now with eight justices on the bench, the court should further concentrate on Yoon's impeachment case.
However, as regards its justice line-up, it reaches an inflection point on April 18. Two justices -- Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-son -- are scheduled to retire on that day. Their seats are supposed to be filled by justices to be nominated by the president. But it looks politically difficult for an acting president to do so. The court will likely try to complete the trial of Yoon's impeachment before their retirement. The rival parties will likely seek to exert political influence on the court.
Behind the Democratic Party's incessant drive to appoint three justices is its leader Lee Jae-myung's anxiousness to see the court uphold Yoon's impeachment and an early presidential election held, all before the first-trial sentence on his election law violation is finalized. Apparently, a situation that he wants to avoid is the Supreme Court upholding Lee's first-trial sentence before the impeachment ruling. The first-trial sentence disqualifies him from running for any elected office, including president.
On the other hand, Yoon and the ruling party will likely try harder to delay ruling on the impeachment case until after the Supreme Court's decision on Lee. Many people will continue rallies for or against Yoon's impeachment until the Constitutional Court issues its conclusion. Parties will make the most of the rallies to influence the impeachment ruling.
The court should not be shaken. It must judge based only on evidence and legal principles. Parties should stop fighting over the justice appointment and watch the court calmly.
