South Korea’s National Assembly passed an impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk-yeol on Saturday, December 14. The vote marks the third time a president has been impeached in the country’s constitutional history.
Out of 300 assembly members, 204 voted in favour of the motion, 85 voted against, three abstained, and eight votes were declared invalid. This outcome indicates that at least 12 votes in favour came from Yoon’s conservative ruling People Power party.
The vote was the second impeachment attempt since Yoon’s shock move to declare martial law for the first time in almost five decades on December 3. The declaration prompted thousands of people to gather at parliament in protest, while opposition lawmakers hurriedly pushed through a vote to remove the measure.
After falling short of the 200 votes needed to pass, the first impeachment vote failed. But after the second resolution passed successfully, Yoon has been suspended and stripped of his executive powers.
The process now shifts to the constitutional court, which has six months to decide whether to remove Yoon or reinstate him. The court has set a preliminary hearing date for December 27, and has requested Yoon’s formal response outlining his position by December 23.
The court has emphasised its commitment to prioritising the case and conducting the trial swiftly. And Yoon has agreed to step aside while the court decides his fate, saying he is “temporarily stopping” his journey. But he has vowed to “never give up”.
In the meantime, the country’s prime minister, Han Duck-soo, has stepped in as the acting president. And protesters have vowed to keep up their demands for Yoon’s removal throughout the trial. If the court removes him from his post, a presidential election must be held within 60 days.
According to Article 111 of the South Korean constitution, the constitutional court is made up of nine judges. Three are appointed by the National Assembly, three are recommended by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and three are appointed by the president.
However, the three judges designated by the National Assembly left their positions in October and have yet to be replaced. This leaves only six judges currently seated, which has sparked a partisan dispute.
The main opposition Democratic party argues that proceeding with a full nine-member court is essential for the fairness and credibility of the trial, and has demanded the immediate appointment of the three missing judges. The ruling party, on the other hand, has asserted that an acting president cannot appoint judges until the impeachment trial and its verdict have been finalised.
This stance looks to be a deliberate strategy to delay proceedings. In November, a Seoul court found South Korean opposition leader Lee Jae-myung guilty of violating the Public Official Election Act. The court ruled that he had made false statements in the past while campaigning to be presidential candidate for the Democratic party.
A delay in proceedings could allow the Supreme Court’s decision on Lee’s case to come before the impeachment outcome. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, Lee will lose his parliamentary seat and be barred from running for public office. This would affect his eligibility as a presidential candidate
Adding to the controversy is Judge Jung Hyung-sik, who was assigned via a computerised selection process to preside over the impeachment trial. Jung, alongside Judge Lee Mi-sun, is also responsible for managing preparatory hearings and evidence review. Jung is the only judge in the constitutional court who was appointed by Yoon, and is widely regarded as strongly conservative.
The path to upholding Yoon’s impeachment remains challenging. Under normal circumstances, a decision to impeach requires the approval of at least six out of nine judges. However, with only six judges currently on the bench, a unanimous decision will be necessary for the motion to succeed.
This is certainly not a foregone conclusion. In a statement on December 12, Yoon defended his actions. He argued that “the exercise of the president’s authority to declare martial law is a political act”. Yoon claims that the exercise of presidential authority involves high-level political judgment and, like granting pardons or conducting diplomacy, should thus remain outside the realm of judicial oversight.
Meanwhile, public sentiment continues to intensify. Citizens have flooded the constitutional court’s website with opinions regarding the impeachment. The court’s free bulletin board, which typically receives only a handful of daily posts, had seen over 37,000 messages related to the impeachment by December 16.
There have also been calls on social media for swift proceedings, reminiscent of the public pressure during the 2016 impeachment of South Korea’s former president, Park Geun-hye. At that time, citizens sent over 1,400 new year’s cards to the judges, urging a timely decision. Similar campaigns are now emerging, with some advocating for sending cards to the current judges requesting they expedite the impeachment trial.
The impeachment process against Yoon is fraught with legal, political and procedural hurdles. The reduced six-judge court, which requires a unanimous decision, adds further uncertainty to the outcome.
At the same time, mounting public pressure and political manoeuvring from both sides are shaping the course of the trial, underscoring its significance as a defining moment in South Korea’s constitutional and political landscape.
Yoon Hwa Walker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
