Yoon should have tried to resolve stalemate through political means, court says
In an 8-0 ruling, the Constitutional Court on Friday found that impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol had committed "grave violations" by imposing martial law on Dec. 3, a standard that had determined former presidents' fate in previous impeachment cases.
The ruling stated that Yoon's abuse of power in declaring martial law and other actions “constitute serious violations of the principles of democratic governance and the rule of law.”
The 114-page verdict showed that Yoon's decision to ignore the national governance structure as enshrined in the Constitution -- by deploying armed forces to the National Assembly and the election commission by imposing martial law -- threatened the stability of the democratic republic.
Delivering the verdict, acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae said that Yoon's legal violations were so severe that the benefit of removing the 64-year-old from his post "far outweighs the national cost of dismissal," adding Yoon had "betrayed the trust of the people" by abusing emergency power.
Moon added that Yoon's martial law decree shows that he chose not to treat the National Assembly as a negotiating partner but rather as an adversary, which "undermines the foundations of democratic politics."
The court acknowledged that martial law was imposed despite South Korea not being at war or in a comparable national emergency; Yoon declared martial law through a flawed Cabinet meeting; Yoon not only failed to notify parliament of his martial law decree but attempted to occupy it; and Yoon ordered the arrest of his political opponents to paralyze the parliament.
Yoon’s invocation of emergency powers to take urgent measures in times of internal turmoil, as prescribed in Article 76 of the Constitution, should be recognized as an "extremely exceptional power." Therefore, Yoon's martial law decree was in violation of the Constitution and the Martial Law Act, according to the ruling.
"(Yoon) revived a dark history of emergency power abuse, shocking the public and causing chaos across politics, the economy, diplomacy and society," Moon said.
The court dismissed claims by Yoon’s representatives that his declaration of martial law was legitimate because he was facing a "national crisis" due to the opposition-led parliament's “tyranny” exemplified by its moves to cut the national budget and its spree of impeachments of officials in the administration, as well as the latent threat of “hybrid warfare."
However, the court made it clear that Yoon should have resolved the political gridlock and suspicions of election fraud "through political, institutional and judicial means," not by mobilizing military forces.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court ruling found that Yoon had ordered the arrest of about a dozen politicians under martial law, amid controversies over whether evidence that Yoon had done so was admissible in the impeachment trial or not.
Moon said in the court ruling that Yoon must have felt a heavy responsibility to resolve what he saw as political paralysis damaging the national interest and that his view may be "understandable in a political sense."
"However, the conflict between the executive and legislature cannot be blamed on one side alone. It is a political issue that must be resolved within the bounds of democracy. Public positions and decisions should align with constitutional principles," he said.
"The National Assembly should have respected minority voices and worked toward compromise with the government."
A point of contention also lay in whether key suspects' statements to the prosecution substantiating the claim that Yoon ordered arrests could be admitted to the impeachment trial. The matter is to be litigated in a separate criminal case in which Yoon is charged with insurrection.
The court found the evidence admissible, despite it being based on verbal statements. Yoon's legal team claimed that the evidence could not be admitted to the impeachment court if Yoon denies the suspects' statements, citing Article 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which concerns whether hearsay can be admitted.
Justices Lee Mi-son and Kim Hyung-du stated in their concurring opinions that verbal evidence against an impeached official should be "loosely" admitted despite the law. However, Justices Kim Bok-hyeong and Cho Han-chang wrote in their concurring opinions that the same clause should be more strictly applied in future impeachment cases.
The court also recognized that Yoon ordered former defense minister Kim Yong-hyun to control the National Election Commission using military force, and was involved in the process to track the whereabouts of former Supreme Court justices with the intention to arrest them.
consnow@heraldcorp.com
