Constitutional Court: "Impeachment of the President Requires Prudence... Acting, Not Succession"
Two Justices Express Dissenting Opinions
The Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment case against Prime Minister Han Duck-soo but ruled that the quorum for the National Assembly's resolution should be based on the 'Prime Minister' standard, as argued by Prime Minister Han's side and the ruling party. Two justices dissented, stating that the 'President' standard should apply, but more than two-thirds of the justices found the procedure lawful, citing 'democratic legitimacy' as the reason.
Prime Minister Han was impeached on December 27 last year, about two weeks after President Yoon was impeached and the Prime Minister assumed the role of acting president. The National Assembly passed the impeachment motion against Prime Minister Han with 192 votes in favor out of 192 members present, from a total of 300 members. However, the ruling party opposed this, arguing that since he was acting president, the impeachment should be based on the presidential impeachment standard.
The Democratic Party of Korea claimed that the quorum for the impeachment resolution against Prime Minister Han should be the same as for the Prime Minister's impeachment, requiring the approval of 151 out of 300 total members. The People Power Party countered, insisting on the presidential standard, which requires a two-thirds majority of the total members (200 seats). On the day the impeachment motion against Prime Minister Han was submitted, the People Power Party also filed a jurisdictional dispute trial with the Constitutional Court regarding this issue.
However, the Constitutional Court stated that "the purpose of requiring a supermajority of two-thirds of the total members of the National Assembly for the impeachment of the President is to ensure that impeachment is exercised cautiously, considering that the President is both the head of state and the head of the executive branch, the weight of democratic legitimacy the President holds, and the importance of the constitutional status and powers."
It added, "The reason why the Constitution stipulates that when the President cannot perform duties due to vacancy or accident, an acting president assumes the role instead of succession is based on the principle of democratic legitimacy, which understands that the scope of authority exercised by the public authority must correspond to the degree of democratic legitimacy."
Since the Prime Minister acting as the President's authority does not possess democratic legitimacy directly elected by the people, it is sufficient to have a majority vote of the total members, as with other impeachment subjects.
In particular, the Constitutional Court clarified in its decision that the position or office of 'acting president' is not newly created. The Court stated, "The acting president means the performance of functions and tasks assigned to the deputy by the Constitution and laws, and it cannot be seen as the creation of a new office or position called 'acting president' or 'acting president official.' The respondent is the Prime Minister, who acts on behalf of the President's authority; the Prime Minister and the acting president do not exist as separate positions."
Meanwhile, Justices Jung Hyung-sik and Cho Han-chang argued that the acting president should be regarded as holding a position equivalent to the President and that the impeachment petition should be dismissed due to procedural defects. These two justices stated, "The acting president is a person who performs the President's duties on behalf of the President in an emergency situation such as vacancy or accident to prevent a vacancy in duties and national functional paralysis. The position of the acting president should be considered 'equivalent to the President's position.'"
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
