hankyoreh

President Yoon Suk-yeol declares martial law in an emergency televised statement from the presidential office in Yongsan, Seoul, on Dec. 3, 2024. (courtesy of the presidential office)

The Constitutional Court began its review of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment hearing in earnest, with demands that the insurrection suspect turn over Cabinet meeting records and a decree from before his martial law declaration on Dec. 3.

With the court stressing that it would “prioritize” the case and the straightforward nature of the charges, observers are predicting a conclusion could come sometime between February and March of next year.

But the president’s own stalling tactics are emerging as a new variable, with his refusal to accept all materials related to the case.

On Wednesday, the Constitutional Court justices held their first deliberation for a focused discussion on the legal issues.

Constitutional scholars predict that the results of their hearing should come sometime before April 2025 at the latest.

While nine grounds for impeachment were presented in the previous case of Park Geun-hye — whose impeachment was ultimately upheld — the grounds in Yoon’s case are relatively straightforward, namely that his unconstitutional and illegal declaration of emergency martial law and enlisting of the military and police for a revolt constitute insurrection and abuse of authority to obstruct the exercising of rights according to the criminal code, and were therefore in broad violation of the Constitution and law.

The previous impeachment hearings for Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye took 64 and 92 days, respectively.

Lee Jong-soo, a law professor at Yonsei University, observed that the Constitutional Court “has expressed its intent to handle [the case] swiftly, and such precedents do exist.”

“In particular, there are two justices who are reaching the end of their terms in April, and in light of the need to go through the selection of new justices and subsequent procedures, I anticipate that a final result will come in March,” he predicted.

The terms of Constitutional Court Justices Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-son both end on April 18.

No Hee-beom, an attorney who previously worked as a rapporteur judge for the court, explained, “The appointment of successors to Justices Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-son is the decision of the president, and it is not possible for an acting president to appoint them in the interim.”

“Yoon Suk-yeol’s case is one where the battle could easily be done in around half the trial time in Park Geun-hye’s,” he suggested.

One potential variable is how the president himself responds. Yoon has suggested that he plans to appear in court himself and publicly plead his case. Analysts are predicting that he could also resort to various stalling tactics.

Currently, he has been buying time by refusing to accept documents from the Constitutional Court. The court has been working to adhere to normal procedures, with plans to revisit his presidential office and residence on Thursday to deliver the documents.

When asked by reporters Wednesday if there had been any precedent of documents not being delivered to a requested party in an impeachment hearing, Constitutional Court spokesperson Lee Jin said, “Nothing recent comes to mind.”

Also, with the Constitutional Court announcing its intent to request investigation records, Yoon’s refusal to consent to the use of evidence from prosecutors’ reports could leave the court having to subpoena witnesses directly for questioning.

It may also request a suspension of adjudication proceedings on the basis of Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Act, which states, “Where a criminal proceeding is under way for the same cause as in the request for impeachment against the respondent, the Full Bench may suspend the adjudication proceedings.”

Lawmakers with six opposition parties submit a second motion for the impeachment of Yoon to the National Assembly bills division on Dec. 12, 2024. (Yonhap)

Kim Seung-dae, a former Pusan National University law professor who previously headed the Constitutional Court’s Constitutional Research Institute, explained, “The nature of Constitutional Court hearings is such that they do not need to summon all witnesses to establish the facts as they would in a criminal trial.”

“Their role is to make legal decisions only within the scope of what requires a constitutional determination after receiving materials from prosecutors and others,” he said.

Analysts said the fact that the chief judge in the case, Justice Cheong Hyung-sik, is viewed as conservative was not a cause for concern.

Lee Jong-soo explained, “The chief judge does have a certain role to play in that they are mainly presenting what subjects and issues need to be researched.”

“But in light of the importance of the case of a presidential impeachment and the nature of the Constitutional Court as a consensus-based system, individual chief judges will make the appropriate determinations,” he added.

By Jang Hyeon-eun, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [[email protected]]