Addition of new judge could increase likelihood of Yoon's impeachment being upheld, but could also delay proceedings
The Constitutional Court is set to deliver its ruling Thursday on whether acting President Choi Sang-mok’s move to withhold the appointment of a ninth justice, recommended by the liberal opposition, is in accordance with the Constitution.
Observers say there is a higher chance of the court upholding President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment by the National Assembly if opposition-recommended justice candidate Ma Eun-hyuk is added to the nine-member bench, which is currently one member short.
In December, Choi approved the nominations of two out of three justice candidates recommended by the Assembly — Chung Kye-sun and Cho Han-chang — but held off on Ma’s appointment. Choi at the time cited the need for a bipartisan consensus, amid news reports pointing to Ma’s left-leaning political views. Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik soon filed a competence dispute case with the court against the acting president, claiming that his refusal to appoint Ma violates the Assembly’s right to nominate a Constitutional Court justice.
The verdict on whether Choi's move was unconstitutional will be delivered at 10 a.m. Thursday, the court recently told both parties, according to the judicial community.
The Constitutional Court had initially planned to deliver the verdict on Feb. 3, but decided to postpone the ruling based on Choi’s claims that an Assembly speaker cannot file a competence dispute with the court on behalf of the parliament without adopting a proper resolution. The court accepted Choi’s claims and held an additional hearing on Feb. 10. The opposition-led Assembly then held a plenary vote on Feb. 14 to adopt a related resolution.
Ma’s possible addition to the court’s nine-member bench could become a determining factor in Yoon’s trial. However, experts suggest that the opposition-nominated justice may choose not to participate in the deliberation on Yoon's ruling.
“With the final hearing of Yoon’s impeachment trial held on Tuesday and the court hurrying to deliver its verdict by mid-March, Ma could try to avoid being a burden to the court by not hopping on the deliberations at the last minute,” Lim Ji-bong, a constitutional law professor at Sogang Law School said.
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 announced.
“The hearings would need to be repeated if Ma joins the bench and he would know that the Constitutional Court is hurrying to deliver a verdict to normalize the political situation here — he would try to avoid being a hurdle in the process,” Lim added.
mkjung@heraldcorp.com
