People Power Party Pressures Constitutional Court on Yoon's Impeachment Trial Amid 'Fairness Doubts'

Kim Ki-hyun Holds Debate on Issues in Presidential Impeachment Process
"Constitutional Court Should Focus on Constitution, Not Just the People," Criticizes
Kwon Seong-dong Calls for New Crime of Abuse of Power Due to Frequent Impeachment Proposals
Yoon Sang-hyun Asks, "How Far Should Interpretation Authority of Article 77 of the Constitution Be Recognized?"

On the 9th, the People Power Party cast doubt on the fairness of the trial and pressured the Constitutional Court, which is handling the impeachment trial of President Yoon Seok-yeol.

On the same day, Kim Ki-hyun, a member of the People Power Party, held a forum titled "What is the problem with the presidential impeachment procedure?" at the National Assembly Members' Office Building in the morning. About 20 members of the People Power Party, including floor leader Kwon Seong-dong, attended the forum and engaged in heated discussions.

The members attending the forum pointed out that the Constitutional Court was showing a biased attitude. In his opening remarks, Representative Kim said, "Recently, a constitutional justice said that they would only look to the people. Hearing this was very shocking," adding, "A constitutional justice should not only look to the people but must look to the Constitution." He continued, "Looking only to the people is essentially the same as being swayed by public opinion," and emphasized, "Judicial independence means independence not only from politics but also from public opinion, which is a very important value of the judiciary. I cannot help but be appalled by the fact that a constitutional justice openly declares that they will only look to the people."

On the 6th, in front of the presidential residence in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Kim Ki-hyun, a member of the People Power Party, along with other party members, expressed their stance on the arrest warrant for President Yoon Seok-yeol, following the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Department's official letter stating that the execution of the arrest warrant for President Yoon would be entrusted to the police. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung

Floor leader Kwon also stated, "The Democratic Party has proposed impeachment motions 29 times, with 10 of them currently pending at the Constitutional Court," and emphasized, "While the presidential impeachment trial is important, the impeachment motions against Acting Prime Minister Han Deok-soo, ministers, and prosecutors are also very important. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court focusing only on the presidential impeachment trial is not appropriate from the perspective of equality before the law."

At the forum, there was a flood of criticism regarding the National Assembly's impeachment prosecution team’s effective withdrawal of the charge of rebellion from the impeachment reasons. Lee Ho-seon, dean of the Graduate School of Law at Kookmin University and former vice president of the Korean Constitutional Law Association, who presented at the forum, said, "With the withdrawal of the rebellion charge by the prosecution team, the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial procedure should be considered effectively over," adding, "The impeachment motion and the impeachment prosecution document are separate, but the two must be identical." He explained, "The withdrawal of the rebellion charge means that the charge was not even considered as grounds for impeachment in the motion, yet it was included to deceive members into voting based on it." He further stated, "If the Constitutional Court proceeds to a substantive judgment with impeachment acceptance in mind without declaring the end of the trial or dismissal, it can only be seen as completing the 'impeachment fraud' following the Democratic Party's 'prosecution fraud.'"

Regarding this, Representative Kim said, "I protested to the Speaker of the National Assembly," explaining, "Removing the rebellion charge from the impeachment reasons is not something the Speaker can decide at will." He added, "I went to protest because a re-vote in the National Assembly was necessary, but Speaker Woo replied that removing the rebellion charge was a minor matter and that he agreed to it at his discretion," and criticized, "They said that since the act of rebellion is included, the rebellion charge can be removed, but where is there an act of rebellion without the charge of rebellion?"

Jo Bae-sook, a member of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, also said, "Since the Constitutional Court is the final instance, the justices arbitrarily violate the rules," and added, "But it is frustrating to think about how to sanction such violations." Jo said, "There is procedural fairness bias and serious legal problems, yet there is no way to sanction the errors," and stated, "If the people are the ultimate constitutional guardians, I think the people have no choice but to exercise their right to resist."

On the 2nd, a wreath supporting President Yoon Seok-yeol was placed in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Following the appointments of Choi Sang-mok, Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance, and Jo Han-chang, Constitutional Court Justice, the Constitutional Court is expected to form an "8-member body" and accelerate the impeachment trial. Photo by Jo Yong-jun

Representative Yoon Sang-hyun raised questions about the authority to interpret the declaration of martial law under Article 77 of the Constitution. This is interpreted as a question arising from the view that there are no constitutional grounds for President Yoon's impeachment. Yoon said, "Did the President really declare martial law with the intention of informing the sovereign people that the legislative and judicial systems were collapsing?" and added, "In the U.S., President Trump's authority was interpreted very broadly. The Constitutional Court seems likely to dispute the authority to interpret this, so I want to ask to what extent we should interpret it." In response, Professor Lee said, "The Constitution only considers the hard state of emergency martial law and does not anticipate a soft state of government paralysis," and explained, "Ultimately, it is considered a judgment for the President, and from an American perspective, it is a ground for immunity."

Floor leader Kwon emphasized the need to enact a bill that would punish the abuse of power for the excessive filing of impeachment motions. He said, "The Constitution grants the National Assembly the right to propose impeachment, but the National Assembly also commits a serious wrongdoing by excessively filing impeachment motions without grounds and arbitrarily interpreting the quorum for approval," and criticized, "Excessively filing impeachment motions without grounds is ultimately an abuse of legislative power and an abuse of authority by the National Assembly."