The Constitutional Court of Korea's justices preside over a case on the constitutionality of acting President Choi Sangmok's decision not to appoint the ninth justice to the bench, Feb. 10 (Yonhap)
The Constitutional Court of Korea's justices preside over a case on the constitutionality of acting President Choi Sangmok's decision not to appoint the ninth justice to the bench, Feb. 10 (Yonhap)

Verdict expected by March 11

With the final hearing of suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment trial scheduled for Feb. 25 -- 73 days since the National Assembly voted to impeach him -- the Constitutional Court is expected to deliver its ruling by the second week of March.

However, the final hearing is not the very last step before the court delivers its ruling on Yoon's impeachment case.

Following the last arguments in Yoon's impeachment trial, the eight justices will go into deliberation, where they give their opinions and deliberate. This process is designed so that each justice can give their opinions one at a time before they cast their votes.

Among the eight-member bench, at least six justices have to vote to confirm Yoon's impeachment in order to uphold it. After the deliberation process, the justices then formally vote to determine the final ruling.

Apart from the vote, the court has to issue a written opinion as the official way of communicating its ruling to the public. This process involves crafting a written ruling explaining the legal grounds for the decision.

If taking into account the impeachment trials of former President Roo Moo-hyun and former President Park Geun-hye, the rulings of which came 14 days and 11 days after their trials' final arguments, respectively, those in the legal circle expect the verdict to be announced by March 11.

Three hypothetical hurdles

The Constitutional Court could have a delay in this timeline if Ma Eun-hyuk, the justice recommended by the opposition-led National Assembly, is appointed before the verdict.

Acting President Choi Sang-mok approved two out of three justice nominees -- Chung Kye-sun and Cho Han-chang -- on Dec. 31, but he held off in appointing Ma, citing the need for a bipartisan consensus.

Under Article 301 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the proceedings of a trial need to be repeated all over again when a judge is changed (or added) after the trial has commenced. However, the article states that it will not apply in cases where only the verdict is left to be pronounced.

In January, acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae stated that the court would repeat the proceedings of suspended Korea Communications Commission Chair Lee Jin-sook’s impeachment trial, as the two justices Chung and Cho were not present during the first and second hearings.

Chung and Cho took office on Jan. 1.

If both the National Assembly―which is prosecuting Yoon’s impeachment―and Yoon agree, the court can carry out a simplified repeat process to continue with the trial without completely repeating all the legal procedures that began with the first hearing on Jan. 14.

Lee’s impeachment trial applied this simplified repeat process, allowing acting Chief Justice Moon to summarize briefly the two previous hearings.

However, Yoon and his legal representatives are not likely to accept this simplified repeat process as they have continuously requested the Constitutional Court to follow Article 38 of the Constitutional Court Act, which states that the court must pronounce its final verdict within 180 days. Yoon has also criticized what he characterizes as the court’s excessive emphasis on expediting the trial, which he claims could lead to a flawed judgment.

In the event that Ma is appointed before the verdict and Yoon refuses to agree to the simplified repeat process, the court could be forced to reexamine the 16 witnesses and repeat previous investigations by playing audio recordings of the past proceedings. Yoon’s impeachment trial hearings, from Jan. 14 to Feb. 20, reportedly lasted about 48 hours total.

There is also the hypothetical possibility of an additional hearing.

Similar to how the court decided to postpone its ruling on the constitutionality of acting President Choi’s decision to withhold the appointment of the ninth justice to the bench, another session for oral arguments could theoretically be made.

In Choi’s trial on Feb. 3, the court announced the resumption of oral arguments two hours before its scheduled ruling.

Finally, a certain “important decision,” an expression used by Yoon’s legal representative, Seok Dong-hyeon, in a press conference held at his office on Wednesday, is considered another potential factor that could affect the schedule for Yoon’s impeachment trial.

This "important decision" refers to an unknown action, such as Yoon’s attorneys collectively resigning.

According to Article 25 of the Constitutional Court Act, a trial's proceedings can not be conducted without a defendant appointing a lawyer. Although the same article does not apply if the defendant himself is qualified as an attorney, which Yoon is.

Yoon and his legal team have said Yoon is not considering voluntarily resigning from the presidency. But they claim the deliberation process of the Constitutional Court is unconstitutional and unlawful, reaching a level where the legal team needs to consider making this so-called important decision, according to Seok.

Ex-President Park’s legal team also alluded to her legal team collectively resigning during her impeachment trial in 2017, threatening to oppose the court’s decision. In the end, they did not do so, however, and the court confirmed her impeachment.


sj_lee@heraldcorp.com