-Court rules Han's failure to appoint justices does not warrant impeachment
-Assembly impeachment vote process ruled lawful
-Court leaves legality of martial law declaration unaddressed
The Constitutional Court of Korea dismissed the impeachment of suspended Prime Minister Han Duck-soo in a divided ruling Monday, immediately reinstating him as acting president.
The court’s decision — which is final and unchallengeable — was not unanimous, with five justices voting to dismiss the impeachment motion and one voting to uphold it. The remaining two justices voted to reject the motion entirely. It was the first ruling on an impeachment case related to President Yoon Suk Yeol's Dec. 3 martial law declaration.
In Monday’s verdict, justices Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-son, Kim Hyung-du, Jung Jung-mi and Kim Bok-hyeong dismissed Han’s impeachment.
Four of the five determined that Han had violated his constitutional duty by declaring in advance that he would reject justice appointments without bipartisan support. However, they found no evidence of his intent, and thus no grounds for dismissal.
Justice Kim Bok-hyeong, while dismissing the case, added Han's failure to appoint justices cannot be seen as him violating the constitution.
Justice Chung Kye-sun, the only one who upheld Han's impeachment, said his failure to appoint justices and a special prosecutor in the insurrection investigation was a "serious violation of the law," and his actions were grave enough to remove him from office.
Although many anticipated that the court would address the constitutionality of the Dec. 3 martial law declaration, the verdict contained no elaboration from any of the eight justices on the matter.
Expectations were high as Han had strongly denied prior knowledge of President Yoon’s martial law plans during the impeachment trial, asserting that he had done his best to persuade the president to reconsider.
Six of the eight judges who voted to either dismiss or uphold the impeachment motion found no evidence supporting the National Assembly's claims that Han actively legitimized Yoon’s martial law bid, such as by convening a Cabinet meeting before its declaration.
Han was impeached on Dec. 27 after the Assembly led by the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea — which holds 170 of 300 seats — accused him of being an “accomplice” to President Yoon’s martial law imposition on Dec. 3. Other reasons included his recommendation that the president veto a special prosecutor investigation into first lady Kim Keon Hee and his refusal to appoint three Constitutional Court justices.
The motion to impeach Han passed unanimously in a 192-0 vote, marking the first time an acting president was impeached by parliament. It needed more than 151 votes to succeed.
Regarding the legitimacy of the Assembly's impeachment vote process, the six judges also ruled that it was lawful.
Justices Cheong Hyung-sik and Cho Han-chang who rejected the motion, however, ruled that the process was unlawful, arguing that it required a two-thirds majority of the full National Assembly, not a simple majority. They emphasized the acting president's role is constitutionally equivalent to the president’s and that the position holds significant democratic legitimacy.
Soon after the court announced the verdict at around 10:20 a.m., Han resumed his role as acting president by returning to his office. He began his work including answering questions from the press at the Government Complex Seoul, and holding an emergency security meeting and tea time with Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok, according to the prime minister's office. Choi served as the acting president while Han was suspended.
Han’s return to office comes 87 days after he was suspended from his position after the National Assembly passed a motion to impeach him on Dec. 27. The court concluded all proceedings on the case in its first hearing on Feb. 19.
However, Han’s reinstatement is unlikely to quiet the storm.
The standoff over the appointment of Ma Eun-hyuk, one of three Constitutional Court justices who was not appointed last year — first by Han and then by Choi — is expected to continue.
The issue played a decisive role in the Assembly’s passage of the impeachment motion against Han last year, amid mounting pressures from the opposition party to appoint Ma.
The five opposition parties have already submitted an impeachment motion against Choi Sang-mok for failing to appoint Ma.
ddd@heraldcorp.com
