Legal Experts Say "Unrealistic"
Outcome Depends on Probe Into "Involvement in Unlawful Martial Law"
Jeong Cheongrae, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, has repeatedly argued that the People Power Party should be designated as an "unconstitutional party" and dissolved. However, legal experts believe that this claim is unlikely to meet the strict requirements and procedures set by the Constitutional Court.
The main issue lies with the procedural requirements. The authority to request a judgment on the dissolution of an unconstitutional party is an exclusive power granted only to the government. On July 15, Jeong proposed a partial amendment to the Constitutional Court Act, aiming to expand the authority to request party dissolution judgments to the National Assembly. According to this bill, even if the National Assembly passes a resolution to request a party dissolution judgment, the government would still need to submit the request after deliberation by the Cabinet.
Lee Heonhwan, professor at Ajou University Law School and former president of the Constitutional Research Institute, stated, "The Constitution clearly stipulates that only the government can file such a request. Allowing the National Assembly to demand party dissolution would infringe upon the government's authority," adding, "As a rule, laws that exceed the constitutional scope of authority are not permitted." As a result, under current law, it is practically impossible to request the dissolution of the People Power Party unless the government takes action, and any attempt to amend the law for this purpose is unlikely to gain constitutional legitimacy.
Even if the government does file a request, it is unlikely that the Constitutional Court would approve the dissolution. Article 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution, which pertains to the system for dissolving unconstitutional parties, includes provisions related to so-called "party privileges." These party privileges require a strict interpretation of whether a party's objectives or activities violate the basic democratic order. There must be clear and explicit evidence, not mere speculation, and any violation must be definitively established. Furthermore, it must be clearly determined which specific aspects of the basic democratic order have been violated by the established actions.
Jang Youngsoo, professor at Korea University Law School, commented, "We need to see what new evidence emerges from the upcoming special prosecutor's investigation, but given that even most ministers were unaware of the situation in advance, it is unlikely that lawmakers would have known. It seems unreasonable to define the entire People Power Party's actions as insurrection based on former President Yoon's imposition of martial law."
However, there are potential obstacles. If the special prosecutor's investigation proves a conspiracy to commit insurrection, this could become a critical factor. The legality and constitutionality of the actions of 45 People Power Party lawmakers who rushed to the presidential residence on January 6 to try to block the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) could also become a significant variable. The special prosecutor investigating the insurrection is focusing on this issue. The special prosecutor has obtained records showing that immediately after the proclamation of the December 3 Martial Law, former People Power Party floor leader Chu Kyungho had consecutive phone calls with then-Presidential Secretary for Political Affairs Hong Cheolho, Prime Minister Han Ducksoo, and President Yoon Sukyeol, and is currently investigating these communications.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
