The court votes 8-0 for the president to violate the constitution.
South Korea’s constitutional court unanimously supported President Yoon Sak Yeol’s ammo each for his short-lived martial law order.
Chief Moon Hyun Bae read the court’s 8-0 ruling, stating that Yoon’s declaration of martial law did not meet the legal requirements of the national crisis and that Yoon violated the law by sending troops to the South Korean Congress.
Currently, there is eight seat judges with one seat, and six have to support the parliamentary ammo each. At least seven justice is required to meet the quorum to deliberate.
Court quorums from this month onwards are questionable as the two liberal justice conditions, the Moon and Justice Lee Meeson, expire in April. Yoon’s ruling party had refused to appoint a court to the court, citing the political bias of candidates appointed to the opposition-led Diet without government support.
The Constitutional Court’s decision to uphold Congressional ammo each will permanently remove Yoon from his office, shortening his first five-year term, which would have ended in May 2027.
The court’s decision will trigger a snap election called within 60 days.
Despite demanding a prompt decision, the court’s 38-day deliberation of the final decision on the president’s ammo each was the longest on record, lasting more than five weeks. Between former presidents Roh Moo-Hyun and Park Geunhye’s blast each, the court only took 14 and 11 days, respectively.
Bullet each crime
Yoon was fired by the Parliament for violating the constitution and illegal instigation, the opposition-led motion said.
The 300-seat National Assembly deleted Yoon on December 14th with votes from 204-85-11. This has resulted in 12 people from Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP) voted in favor of the second round each motion amid party inscribers and Yoon’s refusal to resign.
Two-thirds of the votes were required for each bullet. 11 Dismiss or submit invalid votes.
Opposition parties said Yoon tried to arrest members of the National Assembly by deploying an army that, as outlined in the constitution, allegedly undermining parliamentary powers and disrupts the democratic process.
The move also said that Yoon’s actions were an abuse of power, poses an adequate threat to South Korea’s democratic institutions, and raises guarantees that he will be disqualified from the holding office.
On December 3, members of the public protested against the president’s martial law, protested against opposition leaders, and members of Yoon’s party tried to prevent the session by physically blocking, and opposition lawmakers jumped over the fence to infiltrate after the troops secured boundaries.
All 108 members of Yoon’s party boycotted the vote.
Four hours after the vote was voted at 5:18am, Yoon’s cabinets gathered to officially lift the order.
Yoon argued to the Constitutional Court that martial law was within the president’s administrative authority and not subject to judicial review, on December 3rd.
He said his intention was not to gain power, but to “put an emergency appeal” to Koreans about the political impasse between the administrative branch and the legislative sector that led to the country’s governing crisis.
Some military officials testified that Yoon had irritated his decree’s floor vote and ordered them to drag lawmakers out to detain political opponents.
South Korea has seen at least 16 martial law declarations since 1948. The most recent was in 1980 when tens of thousands of troops were sent to suppress democratic rebellion against Chun Doohan’s military dictatorship in cities in southern Gwangju.
Government paralysis, election fraud claims
In an announcement of martial law on December 3, Yoon warned that South Korea’s opposition Democratic Party (DPK) had launched a “unprecedented number” of cabinet ministers and civil servants to paralyze the government.
Yoon denounced lawmakers for “anti-state conduct aimed at instigating a rebellion,” citing budget cuts that affected government payments such as gas projects, military personnel and child care support. He also highlighted the unsubscribed national security threats, citing the example of a Chinese citizen recently arrested in long-standing photographs from a South Korean military facility.
Yoon said the NEC refused to cooperate with the request for access after the court discovered a vulnerability in the server. The NEC dismissed the allegations as unfounded, saying that the military deployment was “illegal and unconstitutional.”
Yoon said the troops retreated shortly after the National Assembly passed a resolution to lift martial law without causing any injuries or damage.
“If a huge number of fake votes were discovered during the count of ballot boxes in election lawsuits, if NEC’s computer systems are vulnerable to hacking and operations, relying on standard of regular governmental computer systems, and whether the number announced matches the copters inters of fore inters fraud, we will not only correct this, but also reject it,” Yun wrote.
Opposition parties say the PPP’s election fraud claims are supported by their dissatisfaction over the party’s losses in the April 2024 legislative elections.
Rebellion costs are pursued separately
Yoon initially faced accusations of criminal rebellion in the Constitutional Court. The charges were removed on January 3rd, focusing on suspicion of constitutional violations during martial law rather than criminal charges.
Opposition lawmakers said the move would promote the incident, saying the PPP “exposed legal flaws in the blast-each movement.”
The criminal charges suspected of rebellion are being pursued by prosecutors in another trial, with recommendations to Congress by the Bureau of Corruption Investigation for Higher Officials (CIOs), an agency established during the former Moon Jane administration.
The court raised concerns about jurisdiction over the CIO’s rebellion case. The first formal trial in this case is expected on April 24th.
