Conflicts and disputes must be resolved... The Constitutional Court must produce a 'conclusion' that satisfies both sides

Yoon's Side Protests Admission of Prosecution Interrogation Records as Evidence
Concerns Raised Over Infringement of Right to Defense
Controversies Over Ma Eun-hyuk and Withdrawal of Rebellion Charge
Debate Continues Over CIO's Investigative Authority

There were quite a few 'controversies' during the impeachment trial process of President Yoon Seok-yeol. Although many controversies arose outside the Constitutional Court, there were also matters where the Court itself could not be considered free from controversy. It is said that the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court bear the constitutional responsibility of functioning as the 'final arbitrator of disputes' and the 'melting pot of conflicts.' Through the conclusion of this impeachment trial, the Constitutional Court faced the task of convincing both parties, and broadly both camps, and resolving disputes and conflicts.

Yoon’s Side Dissatisfied with Hearing Dates and Evidence Admission

During the Constitutional Court’s two preparatory hearing dates and eleven hearings, President Yoon’s side raised several issues regarding the trial proceedings. The Court initially scheduled five hearings during the second hearing date and later collectively set additional dates up to the ninth hearing, holding hearings roughly twice a week. The main complaint from Yoon’s side was a demand for 'sufficient opportunities for defense,' which intensified after President Yoon came under investigation for the charge of 'leader of a rebellion.'

The Court compromised by scheduling more hearing dates and admitting additional witnesses requested by Yoon’s side, including Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. Previously, former President Roh Moo-hyun’s impeachment trial had seven hearing dates, and former President Park Geun-hye’s had seventeen. President Yoon’s trial falls somewhere in between. The impeachment trial of President Yoon took 73 days from the National Assembly’s approval of the impeachment motion to the conclusion of hearings, which is between the 50 days for former President Roh and 81 days for former President Park.

Yoon’s side strongly protested the Constitutional Court’s admission of the prosecution’s interrogation records as evidence in the impeachment trial. They argued that there was a risk of infringement on the right to defense and cited the 2020 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act as grounds for the evidence being inadmissible. Cho Dae-hyun, a lawyer for Yoon’s side and former Constitutional Court justice, protested by leaving the courtroom, stating, "Admitting prosecution interrogation records as evidence violates the law."

Controversy over ‘Recommendation to Withdraw Rebellion Charge’

At the second preparatory hearing in January, remarks by the National Assembly’s representative caused a stir. The National Assembly’s side said, "We will withdraw the rebellion charge from the impeachment motion," adding, "We believe this was recommended to us by the bench." This led to voices, mainly from the ruling party, questioning the Constitutional Court’s neutrality, and Yoon’s side escalated their offensive by stating, "Since the rebellion charge accounts for 80% of the impeachment reasons, if it is withdrawn, the case should be dismissed." Although the Constitutional Court drew a clear line at an official briefing by stating, "The bench never recommended withdrawing the rebellion charge," it struggled to quell the controversy.

Although unrelated to President Yoon’s impeachment trial, there was some controversy in the authority dispute case related to the non-appointment of Justice Ma Eun-hyuk. When Speaker Woo Won-shik filed the authority dispute without a National Assembly plenary session resolution, a 'procedural defect' issue arose. During the trial process, Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae asked, "How long do you expect it will take to hold the plenary session resolution?" Subsequently, the Democratic Party passed a resolution urging the appointment of Justice Ma in the National Assembly. The ruling party claimed that the Constitutional Court had provided a 'guideline.'

Unsettled Days Outside the Constitutional Court

On the 25th, the final day of the impeachment trial arguments for President Yoon Seok-yeol, groups both supporting and opposing the president's impeachment held picket protests in front of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. 2025.2.25. Photo by Kang Jin-hyeong

Outside the Constitutional Court building in Jongno-gu, Seoul, protests were held daily without fail. The area around the Court turned into a grim scene with police escort vehicles forming barricades. A legal procedure debate ensued over whether the investigative authority over President Yoon belonged to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) or not. In December last year, following the CIO’s exercise of its authority to request case transfers, the prosecution and police handed over investigative authority over President Yoon to the CIO, but Yoon’s side argued that the CIO did not have investigative authority over the rebellion charge either. From January 15, when President Yoon was detained, appeals such as applications for detention review continued.

The Seoul Central District Court is currently deliberating on whether to cancel President Yoon’s detention. Although the court usually decides on detention cancellation requests within seven days of receipt, the presiding panel, considering the gravity of the matter, exceeded this deadline and held an additional hearing date. At the hearing held on the 20th of last month, the panel stated, "If additional written submissions are made within ten days, we will carefully review and decide."