'Prime Minister Impeachment Trial' First Hearing... Korean PM's Side Requests "Hear Before Yoon's Impeachment Trial"

At the first preparatory hearing for the impeachment trial of Prime Minister Han Deok-su held on the 13th, Han's legal team argued that the case should be heard before the impeachment trial of President Yoon Seok-yeol. They emphasized the urgency of the Prime Minister's "return as acting president" to stabilize the political situation. However, the National Assembly's legal representatives countered that "all uncertainties stem from President Yoon" and argued there was no basis for prioritizing this case.

Constitutional Court Justice Kim Bok-hyung (left) and Constitutional Court Justice Kim Hyung-doo enter and sit in the small courtroom of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 13th for the first preparatory hearing of the impeachment trial of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. 2025.1.13 [Joint Coverage] Yonhap News Agency

During the first preparatory hearing for Han's impeachment trial, held in the Constitutional Court's small courtroom in the afternoon and presided over by Justices Kim Hyung-doo and Kim Bok-hyung, Han's attorneys stated, "The respondent, who should work to stabilize the government after the president's impeachment, has been impeached, causing a double vacancy," making this argument.

In response, the National Assembly's legal representatives, who filed the impeachment, pointed out, "During the roughly ten days when the respondent (Prime Minister Han) served as acting president, uncertainty increased, including significant turmoil in South Korea's foreign exchange market due to the refusal to appoint constitutional court justices." They added, "With the appointment of Acting Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok and two constitutional court justices, the political situation has somewhat stabilized." They further argued, "There is no basis for the claim that the respondent's return as acting president is urgent," and "To promptly stabilize the current political situation, it is clear that the impeachment case against President Yoon, which caused all these uncertainties, should take precedence."

The court did not directly respond to the request from Han's legal team. However, Justice Kim Hyung-doo explained, "There are multiple impeachment cases before the Constitutional Court, each with different justices and separate preparatory procedures," and "Each justice has designated dates to proceed with the procedures." The court then scheduled the next preparatory hearing for the 5th of next month, effectively rejecting the request for 'priority hearing.'

During the preparatory hearing for Han's impeachment trial, issues such as the summary of points in the impeachment resolution, witnesses and evidence, and trial schedules were coordinated. Han's legal team, like President Yoon's representatives, raised concerns about the submission of investigation records by citing Article 32 of the Constitutional Court Act. In response, Justice Kim Hyung-doo explained, "Article 32 of the Constitutional Court Act refers to the 'original' case records," and "According to Rule 39 of the Trial Rules, if it is difficult to submit the original, a certified copy can be requested." He emphasized, "It is not impossible to request the submission of investigation records according to the rules."

The issue of the 'withdrawal of the charge of rebellion,' which was a point of contention during President Yoon's impeachment preparatory hearing, was also mentioned. Among the grounds for impeachment against Prime Minister Han are conspiracy, acquiescence, and aiding and abetting acts of rebellion. Han's legal team said, "We ask the petitioner (the National Assembly) to clarify whether they are also withdrawing the charge of rebellion in this case," adding, "This is a very important issue for exercising the right to defense." The National Assembly's legal representatives stated they would organize their position and submit it in writing later.

The quorum required for the impeachment resolution against the acting president and prime minister was also a point of contention. Han's legal team argued that the quorum for impeachment resolution against the acting president is "200 members," stating, "Although the quorum is not a ground for impeachment, this case should be dismissed because the quorum was not met." They especially requested, "We ask the Constitutional Court to promptly decide on this issue before the next preparatory hearing."

On the other hand, the National Assembly's legal representatives argued that the quorum for impeachment resolution against the prime minister is "150 members," stating, "We maintain that the enhanced quorum does not apply," and "There is no reason to consider this as a preliminary issue."

In response, the court said, "According to the plenary session minutes at the time of the resolution, the Speaker of the National Assembly reviewed opinions from the Constitutional Law Association and the National Assembly Legislative Research Office to determine the quorum," and requested, "(Petitioners) please find and submit the basis or materials for the Speaker's judgment." The court added, "Although this is a very important issue, requesting a decision on this at the next hearing is not appropriate in the trial procedure, and the final decision should be included in the judgment when it is rendered," and "If both parties submit materials on this matter, it will help in making a reasonable judgment."