By Ewald König

‍

‍

South Korea's constitutional judges voted unanimously (eight to zero) in favour of the removal of President Yoon Suk Yeol, who plunged the country into a deep crisis last December by declaring martial law.

‍

The Constitutional Court in Seoul announced its eagerly awaited judgement on the removal of the suspended right-wing nationalist head of state at 11 a.m. local time (4 a.m. German time) on Friday. According to the constitution, a new election must now be held in Korea within 60 days.

‍

‍

In explaining the reasons, the chairman addressed and refuted all allegations made by President Yoon Suk Yeol. With its decision, the highest court confirmed the decision of the South Korean parliament, which had called for impeachment.

‍

“A regime never wins against the population,” said opposition politician Jung Chung-rae, chairman of Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs, visibly moved after the verdict. Other top representatives of the opposition party also expressed relief. The enemy of democracy was defeated by democracy. Even as president, you could not bring down the democratic system. A president is not a king.

‍

‍

The verdict came exactly 122 days after the declaration of a state of emergency last December, which was, of course, annulled by Parliament after a few hours. The verdict should have been announced as early as March. The hearings and deliberations lasted for weeks. This initially indicated disagreement among the eight judges. The unanimous decision of the constitutional judges was therefore received with great relief.

‍

‍

Yoon himself initially stated through his lawyer that this was "a political decision that is legally unacceptable". The proceedings against him were not conducted properly, but unfairly. A little later, however, he came forward personally with an ‘apology to the people’. He said he was sincerely sorry ‘and heartbroken that I was not able to fulfil your expectations.’ Kweon Song-dong, leader of the presidential party, regretted the verdict, but announced that his party would accept it with humility.

‍

‍

Allies offended

Yoon had temporarily imposed martial law due to a budget dispute with the opposition and accused the liberal opposition of collaborating with communist North Korea and China. He plunged the country into an unprecedented political and moral crisis. For months, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in many Korean cities protested against Yoon, but also for him, which deeply divided the country. The president had caused enormous damage to the country's image and offended the allies.

‍

The current prime minister, Han Duck-soo, who is also interim head of state, stressed that he would do everything he could to ensure the country's stability so that there is no gap in national security and diplomacy. “I will do my best to steer the next presidential election in such a way that the next government can be brought into office smoothly.”

‍

‍

Reasons for judgement: "Fundamental rights severely violated"

In the verdict, Moon Hyung-bae, the President of the Constitutional Court, had stated:

“The defendant denied national sovereignty and democracy,

• by interfering with the exercise of the constitutional powers of the National Assembly,

• by using the military to prevent Parliament from exercising its constitutional powers,

• by disregarding the structure of government set out in the Constitution,

• by using the military to seize and search the National Election Commission

• by severely violating the people's fundamental rights.”

‍

‍

"Damaged stability, shocked the people"

‍

These actions had violated the basic principles of the rule of law and the democratic state and seriously damaged the stability of the democratic republic.

‍

“The defendant should also have respected Parliament as the representative of the people for cooperation. However, the defendant marginalised it, which violates the premise of democratic politics and seriously damages the stability of democracy.

‍

Even if the defendant was of the opinion that the exercise of parliamentary powers constituted an abuse of the majority, he should have ensured that control and balance were established through the appeals provided for in the Constitution. In the parliamentary elections, which took place approximately two years after the defendant took office, the defendant had the opportunity to persuade the people to let him run the country. Even if the results did not match the defendant's intentions, the defendant should not have tried to exclude the will of the people who supported the opposition. Nevertheless, by declaring martial law in violation of the Constitution, the defendant repeated the previous history of misuse of state emergency powers, shocked the people and caused chaos in all areas of society, economy, politics and foreign policy.”

‍

The President of the Constitutional Court also stated: “By using the military to undermine the authority of constitutional institutions such as Parliament and to violate the basic human rights of the people, the defendant violated his responsibility to defend the Constitution and severely abused the trust of the sovereign Korean people. This represents serious violations of rights which cannot be tolerated from the point of view of protecting the Constitution.”

‍

Since the negative effects of the defendant's violations of law on constitutional order were so significant, the benefits and harms had to be weighed up. The removal of the president would mean such great benefits for the protection of the Constitution that he far outweighs the potential damage of the removal.

‍