[Insight & Opinion] Lack of Finishing Power by the Democratic Party and the Uri Law Team

100 Days Since Impeachment: All Possibilities Remain Open
Withdrawal of Rebellion Charge and CIO Investigation Controversy
Impeachment Legitimacy Shaken, Sparking Conservative Unity

When the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol was passed, impeachment and an early presidential election were only a matter of time. There was a rumor of a 'unanimous acceptance.' However, after 100 days, it remains unclear whether the Constitutional Court will accept, dismiss, or reject the case. This may be the self-inflicted consequence of the progressive justices and the head of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) symbolized by the Democratic Party of Korea, the Uri Law Research Association, and the International Human Rights Law Research Association. They seemed overly impatient about removing a conservative president.

The decisive impatience was evident in impeaching the president on charges of rebellion but then removing the rebellion charge during the impeachment trial. The Democratic Party-led impeachment prosecution team stated, “We will not seek judgment on whether the crime of rebellion under the Criminal Act is established.” There was even intermittent controversy that “the Constitutional Court recommended excluding the rebellion charge.” The president’s legal team countered, “Withdrawing the rebellion charge means 80% of the impeachment resolution is withdrawn.”

This issue became a justification for the previously powerless conservative faction to unite against impeachment. It also undermined the logical consistency of the impeachment. In a countermeasure meeting, the Democratic Party said, “The grounds for removing the rebel leader Yoon Suk-yeol from office are clear. If Yoon Suk-yeol returns to the presidency, the destruction of the Republic of Korea is certain.” This claim is vulnerable to criticism that “since the rebellion charge was withdrawn, the premise that he is a rebel leader does not hold.”

When Acting President Choi Sang-mok delayed the appointment of progressive-leaning Ma Eun-hyuk as a Constitutional Court justice candidate, the National Assembly filed a constitutional dispute trial. Choi Sang-mok argued it was improper because the request was made by the Speaker of the National Assembly in the name of the Assembly. The Democratic Party and the Speaker gave a pretext by hurriedly skipping the plenary session vote. Regarding the KakaoTalk censorship controversy, although the Democratic Party may feel unfairly treated, it also touched on sensitive public sentiment about freedom of expression too hastily. This controversy led Korean history lecturer Jeon Han-gil to become an icon opposing impeachment.

Testimonies and notes alleging the president’s illegal acts lost evidentiary strength. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court seemed to limit the president’s right to rebuttal by using a stopwatch. The 73-day hearing period for this impeachment case is much shorter than the average 202.3 days for six other impeachment cases in the past decade. The Court ended the arguments despite inconsistent testimonies. It seemed to try to fill gaps with investigation records. However, defendant’s statements are only evidence when the defendant acknowledges them as facts. Although impeachment trials are not criminal proceedings, the Criminal Procedure Act is applied mutatis mutandis. The Court has not reached a conclusion even a month after closing arguments. This may be because there is little “clear-cut evidence” supporting a conclusion. Hastily and carelessly investigating to rush the trial may have backfired.

The head of the CIO directed the arrest of the president. There was also controversy over “warrant shopping” by requesting warrants from progressive judges. Subsequently, the court doubted the CIO’s authority to investigate rebellion charges and canceled the president’s detention. If the police had continued the investigation as usual, there would have been no issue with investigative authority. The “nonsense” (Kim Eo-jun) of the president’s release may also be due to the CIO’s overzealous, rapid, and unfair investigation that stirred controversy.

In football terms, the Democratic Party and the Uri Law team scored the opening goal by impeaching the president. Afterwards, due to impatience, they lost their scoring ability but continued to “attack relentlessly.” As their defensive logic weakened, they were counterattacked and allowed a tie with the president’s release.

They rushed, but they failed to have the presidential impeachment verdict come out before the second trial verdict on the election law involving Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung. It is uncertain whether an early presidential election will be realized. However, if they had maintained a consistent stance on the rebellion charge, conducted the Constitutional Court hearing fairly, and allowed the police to investigate calmly, it would have been better for our society. The legitimacy of the president’s impeachment has declined compared to before.

Heo Man-seop, Professor at Gangneung-Wonju National University