On December 14, 2024, South Korea’s National Assembly took a historic step by passing an impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk-yeol. This bold move thrust the nation into a constitutional showdown that will unfold in the Constitutional Court. The impeachment trial will test the resilience of South Korea’s democratic institutions, its commitment to the rule of law, and the strength of constitutional checks and balances.
This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the impeachment process under the Korean Constitution, the specific charges leveled against President Yoon Suk-yeol, and the critical legal and constitutional issues at stake. By examining the key elements of the case—such as the alleged unconstitutional martial law declaration, infringement upon the National Assembly’s powers, and accusations of internal rebellion (the crime of “treason” or “internal disturbance”)—readers will gain insight into why this impeachment represents a pivotal moment in South Korean constitutional and political history.
 |
| Impeachment Proceedings |
The Constitutional Court of Korea and Impeachment
The Court’s Role and Authority
South Korea’s Constitutional Court, established to safeguard the nation’s fundamental law and democratic order, plays a central role in adjudicating constitutional disputes. The Court’s jurisdiction includes reviewing laws for constitutionality, adjudicating jurisdictional disputes between state organs, and, crucially, presiding over impeachment trials involving high-ranking public officials, including the President.
Impeachment in South Korea is governed by the Constitution, which details that the National Assembly can pass a motion to remove a President, Prime Minister, or other high-ranking officials if they have violated the Constitution or laws in the course of their duties. Following the Assembly’s impeachment resolution, the Constitutional Court conducts a formal trial to determine whether the alleged wrongdoing is serious enough to warrant removal from office.
Impeachment Procedures
Under the Korean Constitution (Article 65), the National Assembly initiates impeachment by passing a motion. For the President, this requires a majority proposal and at least a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly to approve. Once the impeachment motion is passed, the President’s powers are suspended until the Constitutional Court reaches a verdict.
The Court must then assess the validity of the accusations, ensuring fairness and due process. At least six of the nine Constitutional Court justices must concur for impeachment to be upheld. If the Court finds the charges justified and severe enough, it can remove the President from office, protecting the Constitution and restoring constitutional order.
President Yoon Suk-yeol’s Impeachment: Key Charges and Background
On December 3, 2024, President Yoon Suk-yeol declared a state of emergency and imposed nationwide martial law—referred to as a “special state of emergency” or “extraordinary martial law” (비상계엄)—citing threats from “pro-North Korean” and “anti-state” elements. Troops were reportedly deployed around the National Assembly to prevent lawmakers from convening and exercising their constitutionally mandated oversight functions.
The National Assembly responded by adopting an impeachment motion with overwhelming support, citing multiple constitutional and legal violations, including:
Illegitimate Martial Law Declaration:
The impeachment motion claims that the President’s declaration of a nationwide state of emergency and martial law lacked the necessary constitutional and legal conditions.Unconstitutional Orders Infringing on the National Assembly:
The deployment of troops around the National Assembly building, as well as attempts to prevent lawmakers from meeting and exercising their legislative and oversight powers, allegedly amount to serious violations of constitutional democracy.Treason and Internal Disturbance Allegations (내란죄):
The President is accused of attempting to undermine the constitutional order itself by using force or threat of force against constitutional organs, notably the National Assembly. This falls under the category of “internal treason” (내란죄) as defined by South Korean criminal law.
By passing the impeachment motion, the National Assembly argued that President Yoon’s actions gravely undermined the Constitution, threatened democratic governance, and warranted his removal to restore constitutional order.
Constitutional and Legal Provisions on Impeachment
Relevant Constitutional Articles
Article 65 of the Constitution:
Allows the National Assembly to impeach the President or other high officials for violations of the Constitution or laws.Article 77 on Martial Law:
Details conditions under which the President may declare martial law (계엄), namely in times of war, invasion, or a similarly grave national emergency. It also requires that martial law declarations meet procedural conditions and be promptly reported to the National Assembly, which retains the power to request its lifting.Article 84 (Presidential Immunity):
The President is generally immune from criminal prosecution during the term in office, except in cases of treason or external aggression. Thus, if the President commits internal treason (내란죄), this immunity does not apply.
The Accusations Against Yoon and Constitutional Criteria
The impeachment motion asserts that President Yoon failed to satisfy any legitimate grounds for imposing emergency rule. Under Korean constitutional law, martial law or state of emergency must be tied to an actual, existing, and severe national crisis, such as war or a breakdown of public order that cannot be managed by the civilian police force alone.
The impeachment alleges no such conditions existed. Instead, it claims the President’s move was a preemptive, unconstitutional act to suppress political opposition, block the National Assembly from exercising its legislative and supervisory functions, and undermine the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.
Key Issues Under Scrutiny in the Constitutional Court
1. Did the President’s Actions Meet the Conditions for Martial Law?
The Constitution (Article 77) and the Martial Law Act (계엄법) strictly limit when martial law can be declared. It must be in response to severe emergencies like war or massive social unrest making normal governance impossible.
According to the impeachment motion, President Yoon cited threats from “pro-North Korean” and “anti-state elements” to justify the emergency declaration. However, critics argue there was no actual armed rebellion, no violent uprising, and no imminent threat that policing measures could not contain. The Constitutional Court will examine whether the President’s reasoning meets the constitutional threshold.
2. Procedural Violations in Declaring Martial Law
Even if a severe emergency existed, the impeachment asserts that proper procedures were not followed. Under the Martial Law Act and the Constitution, declaring martial law involves:
- Prior consultation with and recommendation by the Prime Minister and relevant ministers.
- Proper deliberation in a Cabinet meeting (국무회의).
- Immediate notification to the National Assembly.
- Observing the constitutional principle of written orders and co-signatures (문서주의 및 부서제도).
In this case, the Prime Minister stated publicly that he was neither consulted nor involved in recommending martial law, and that he learned of it after the fact. No immediate official government notice was reportedly issued, and the national gazette did not carry a formal announcement. These procedural failures suggest constitutional and statutory non-compliance.
3. The Legality of the “Prohibitive Decrees” (포고령)
Following the martial law declaration, a so-called “Proclamation No. 1” (포고령 1호) was issued, allegedly banning all political activities—including those of the National Assembly and local councils—and restricting freedoms of assembly, association, and expression. Critics, including opposition lawmakers and constitutional law scholars, contend that no constitutional provision grants the President authority to suspend the National Assembly or outlaw political activity under martial law. The Court must decide if these decrees violated fundamental democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.
4. Accusations of Internal Treason (내란죄)
A central charge is that President Yoon’s actions amount to treason under Korean criminal law. Article 87 of the Criminal Code defines treason (내란) as raising a violent rebellion to overthrow constitutional order or prevent a constitutional organ from exercising its powers. If proven, this is one of the most serious crimes against the state, subjecting the perpetrator to harsh penalties.
The impeachment motion notes that armed troops allegedly attempted to block lawmakers from entering the National Assembly and exercising their constitutional duty to demand the lifting of martial law. Such acts, if proven, could be interpreted as forcefully suppressing a constitutional body—an essential element of internal treason.
The Constitutional Court must consider not only whether the President violated the Constitution or laws, but also whether the violations were “grave” enough to justify removal from office. Past impeachment precedents, such as the 2004 impeachment attempt against President Roh Moo-hyun, suggest that even if some violations occurred, the Court may consider whether the misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant the President’s ouster.
Historical and Legal Precedents
Comparing Past Impeachments
South Korea has experienced impeachment crises before. In 2004, President Roh Moo-hyun faced impeachment for allegedly violating electoral neutrality. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the breach but found it insufficiently serious to justify removal, thus rejecting the impeachment.
In contrast, the current situation involves allegations far more severe—claims of internal treason, violent interference with the legislature, and attempted suspension of constitutional governance. If the Court finds these allegations credible and severe, they may reach a different conclusion.
Lessons from Past Coups and Emergencies
The 1979-1980 coups and the 1980 Gwangju Democratization Movement’s suppression by the military still loom large in Korean legal history. Courts previously considered the forceful shutdown of constitutional institutions as serious violations of fundamental law. If President Yoon’s actions are seen as analogous to these past atrocities, the Constitutional Court may deem removal necessary to uphold constitutional fidelity.
The Political and Social Context
Public Opinion and Mass Protests
Outside the National Assembly and across the country, citizens have staged demonstrations. Some support the impeachment, holding signs and chanting slogans for President Yoon’s removal, accusing him of betraying constitutional principles and democratic values. Others might question the severity of the charges or claim political partisanship. The Constitutional Court, however, must remain impartial and base its decision solely on constitutional and legal grounds.
Impact on Democracy and Governance
The impeachment trial tests the robustness of South Korean democracy. Will the institutions designed to prevent abuses of executive power function as intended? Can the Constitutional Court render a fair, credible verdict that reinstills public faith in the rule of law?
If the Court upholds impeachment, it sends a strong message that no official, not even the President, is above the Constitution. If it rejects impeachment, it must provide a clear rationale to reassure the public that constitutional violations were not grave enough to merit removal.
Either outcome will shape South Korea’s political landscape, the balance of power between executive and legislature, and the nation’s global image as a stable democracy committed to constitutional principles.
Potential Outcomes and Their Consequences
If the Court Upholds the Impeachment
Should the Constitutional Court find President Yoon guilty of serious constitutional violations, he would be removed from office. This scenario would be unprecedented for a President accused of acts tantamount to internal treason. It would reinforce the rule of law, affirm the Court’s role as guardian of the Constitution, and potentially usher in a period of intense reflection and reform.
Under the Constitution, an impeached President who is removed from office cannot return to public service for at least five years. Criminal proceedings against the former President could then commence, as the immunity provided during the presidency no longer applies in cases of treason.
If the Court Rejects the Impeachment
If the Constitutional Court concludes that while some violations occurred, they do not rise to the level warranting removal, President Yoon would resume his duties. Such a decision would likely spark intense debate. The Court would have to articulate clear criteria for “grave” constitutional violations, possibly setting new guidelines for future cases.
This outcome might also be seen as a political victory for the President and his supporters, but it could raise questions about accountability and the standard for impeaching high-ranking officials.
The Bigger Constitutional Picture
Preserving Checks and Balances
The impeachment trial highlights the importance of the separation of powers in preventing abuses by the executive branch. The National Assembly, empowered to initiate impeachment, and the Constitutional Court, empowered to judge it, represent two critical checks on presidential authority. Ensuring these institutions can function independently and effectively is paramount to the health of South Korean democracy.
Strengthening Democratic Institutions
Regardless of the verdict, the impeachment process itself demonstrates the mechanisms available in a constitutional democracy to address potential executive overreach. By transparently adjudicating such a sensitive and momentous case, the system reaffirms that sovereignty ultimately rests with the people and that elected officials serve at the people’s consent.
International and Diplomatic Dimensions
South Korea’s global reputation as a mature democracy and stable rule-of-law state is also at stake. International observers and allies will be watching closely. A fair and transparent impeachment trial that reaches a just conclusion can reinforce confidence in South Korea’s institutions. Conversely, a politicized or opaque process could tarnish its democratic credentials.
Conclusion
The impeachment proceedings against President Yoon Suk-yeol mark a defining moment in South Korea’s constitutional history. The Constitutional Court must now navigate a complex interplay of constitutional interpretation, statutory requirements, and factual determinations regarding martial law, procedural compliance, and the nature of internal treason.
Regardless of the final outcome, this impeachment trial underscores the resilience of South Korea’s democratic institutions. It offers the nation a chance to reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law, ensure that no one stands above the Constitution, and ultimately strengthen its democratic order.
As the case unfolds, both the Korean public and the international community will gain a deeper appreciation for the constitutional safeguards in place to preserve the nation’s democracy. By the end of this trial, South Korea’s constitutional framework will have been tested, clarified, and potentially reinforced, shaping the country’s future as a vibrant, rule-of-law democracy.
