Constitutional Court Rules Unconstitutional Ban on Assemblies and Protests Within 100m of the Speaker of the National Assembly's Official Residence

Unanimous Opinion: "No Exceptions for Banning Assemblies Without Threat Potential"

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the law prohibiting assemblies and demonstrations within 100 meters of the National Assembly Speaker's official residence is unconstitutional.

On the 23rd, the Constitutional Court issued a unanimous decision of constitutional inconsistency in a constitutional review case requested by the Seoul Western District Court regarding Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

The Assembly and Demonstration Act stipulates that assemblies and demonstrations must not be held within 100 meters of the presidential residence, the National Assembly Speaker's official residence, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court's official residence, and the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court's official residence.

The Constitutional Court judged that a blanket prohibition and punishment of assemblies and demonstrations within 100 meters of the presidential residence violates the Constitution. However, since a simple ruling of unconstitutionality would create a legislative vacuum, the Court issued a decision of constitutional inconsistency, setting a deadline for the law to be amended.

The Court stated, "Various regulatory measures are in place to protect the function and peace of the National Assembly Speaker's official residence, and violent acts or obstruction of business during assemblies are punishable under criminal law. Therefore, even if assemblies are exceptionally permitted near the National Assembly Speaker's official residence, the function and peace of the residence can be sufficiently guaranteed."

It added, "Setting the entire area near the National Assembly Speaker's official residence as a broad, comprehensive assembly prohibition zone and prohibiting all assemblies without exception, including those unlikely to pose a direct threat to the function and peace of the residence, is an excessive restriction beyond what is necessary to achieve the legislative purpose," and "The provision under review violates the principles of minimal infringement and balance of public interests."

However, the Constitutional Court issued a decision of constitutional inconsistency with a deadline for amendment to avoid a legislative vacuum. If the National Assembly does not amend the law by May 31, 2024, the provision under review will lose its effect.

Previously, the Constitutional Court also ruled on the presidential residence, stating, "Setting a broad assembly prohibition zone near the presidential residence and prohibiting all assemblies there based solely on the assumption of vague risks of violence, illegality, or sudden incidents is difficult to justify," and issued a decision of constitutional inconsistency.