South Korea’s Constitutional Court’s reinstatement of Han Duck-soo as prime minister yesterday, overturning his impeachment, is a significant development in the country’s political crisis. But despite superficial similarities, Han’s case bears little resemblance to that of suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was impeached in December for imposing martial law.
The court is expected to rule on Yoon’s case soon.
The Constitutional Court’s eight justices reached different conclusions on the charges against Han, who, as South Korea’s second highest official, became acting leader after Yoon’s impeachment. Seven of the judges found that none of the charges, including his refusal to appoint certain judges to restore the Constitutional Court’s full membership, met the constitutional threshold for removal from office.
The ruling underscores the importance of evaluating each case on its individual merits.
In contrast, at the heart of Yoon’s case was his unexpected declaration of martial law on December 3 and its threat to human rights and the country’s democratic institutions.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which South Korea is a party, states in article 4 that the government may only suspend (“derogate”) certain rights “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.” Such measures must be strictly necessary, proportionate to the crisis, and temporary.
Political tensions in South Korea have been rising. In the previous twoimpeachment cases, the court has ruled within two weeks of holding a trial. Since Yoon’s trial ended on February 25, many legal experts expected a verdict by March 14. There is concern that a prolonged delay will deepen political polarization.
On January 19, dozens of pro-Yoon demonstrators stormed the Seoul Western District Court after authorities extended Yoon’s detention. Sixty-three people were indicted for obstruction and property damage. The Rev. Jun Kwang-hoon, a fervent defender of Yoon who is under investigation for inciting insurrection, has helped fuel these protests, which have increasingly turned violent. Members of the judiciary, including the acting chief justice of the Constitutional Court, have faced harassment, threatening the court’s independence.
As South Koreans await the Constitutional Court’s decision, it is hoped that a clear and principled ruling will reaffirm the court’s standing as a bastion of human rights and the rule of law and defender of South Korea’s democratic institutions.