Constitutional Court Dismisses Impeachment Case Against Acting President Han Duck-soo: A Landmark Moment in Korean Constitutional Law
Introduction
On March 24, 2025, the Constitutional Court of Korea made a historic decision to dismiss the impeachment petition against Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who was serving as the acting President at the time. This unprecedented case went beyond politics, sparking profound discussions on constitutional interpretation, the structure of executive power, and the rule of law.
This blog post provides a comprehensive breakdown of this extraordinary event in Korea’s constitutional history, analyzing the background, legal issues, and implications for the future.
Background of the Case
- December 14, 2024: President Yoon Suk-yeol was impeached by the National Assembly. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo assumed the role of acting President.
- December 26, 2024: 170 lawmakers submitted an impeachment bill against Han.
- December 27, 2024: The National Assembly passed the impeachment motion with 192 votes in favor, sending the case to the Constitutional Court.
This was the first time in Korean history that an acting President faced an impeachment trial.
Key Legal Issues
-
Impeachment Procedure:
Is a simple majority vote sufficient to impeach an acting President, or does it require a two-thirds supermajority? -
Violation of Law:
Did Han Duck-soo violate the Constitution or statutory laws? -
Severity of Violation:
If violations occurred, were they serious enough to warrant dismissal from office?
Summary of Justices’ Opinions
🔹 Dismissal (5 Justices)
-
Justices Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, Kim Hyung-du, Jung Jung-mi:
Acknowledged certain constitutional breaches, such as delays in appointments, but concluded they weren’t severe enough to justify dismissal. -
Justice Kim Bok-hyeong:
Found no constitutional violation. Argued that the acting President is entitled to a reasonable period for deliberation regarding appointments.
🔸 Upholding Impeachment (1 Justice)
- Justice Jung Kye-seon:
Argued that clear constitutional violations occurred, particularly:- Refusal to appoint a Constitutional Court Justice.
- Delay in requesting a Special Prosecutor nomination.
🔻 Dismissed for Procedural Deficiency (2 Justices)
-
Justices Jeong Hyung-sik and Cho Han-chang:
Asserted that the impeachment procedure was invalid because Han was serving as acting President.Therefore, a two-thirds majority, as required for presidential impeachment, should have applied. Since the motion passed with only a simple majority, they deemed it procedurally flawed.
Court’s Ruling and Interpretation
The Court concluded that:
- Impeachment should be judged based on Han’s original status as Prime Minister, not as acting President.
- Therefore, a simple majority vote in the National Assembly was sufficient.
This sets a significant precedent for future impeachment cases involving acting heads of state.
Political Impact and Public Response
- The ruling party welcomed the dismissal, criticizing the impeachment as a “political overreach.”
- The opposition denounced the ruling, claiming it reflected the Court’s “passive constitutional interpretation.”
This case reignited debates over the role of the Prime Minister during presidential vacancy, emphasizing the need for clearer constitutional guidelines.
Conclusion
The dismissal of Han Duck-soo’s impeachment was far more than a political event—it was a critical moment in Korean constitutional law. It showcased the complex balance between democratic accountability and procedural legality.
More importantly, it reminded us that constitutional interpretation is rarely black and white. The split among justices illustrated the nuanced and diverse perspectives involved in such consequential decisions.
As Korea continues to evolve democratically, cases like this highlight the importance of public engagement, legal awareness, and institutional checks and balances.
Stay informed. Stay engaged. Democracy is a shared responsibility.
댓글
댓글 쓰기