On March 24, South Korea’s Constitutional Court overturned the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who was suspended from his duties by a vote of the National Assembly on December 27. With five of eight justices opting to reject and two justices ruling to dismiss the impeachment, Han has been reinstated as prime minister as well as acting president. Only one justice upheld Han’s impeachment.
Han’s impeachment at the National Assembly came 13 days after the parliament passed the bill calling for impeaching President Yoon Suk-yeol in the wake of his failed attempt to grasp unconditional power through martial law. Han had assumed the acting president role until his own impeachment. Although the parliament passed the bill calling for impeaching Yoon nearly two week ahead of Han’s, the Constitutional Court issued its ruling on Han’s case first – even though it has implied that Yoon’s case would be a top priority to handle.
The Democratic Party had impeached Han due to his refusal to appoint three justices nominated by the National Assembly. In its verdict, the court said Han’s refusal to appoint three justices nominated by the National Assembly was unconstitutional, accepting that part of the DP’s claim. However, the court ruled that this act was not enough for him to be removed from office permanently. The justices found that there is not enough evidence and facts to prove that Han was attempting to neutralize the Constitutional Court’s impeachment trial involving Yoon.
Han’s role as prime minister during Yoon’s declaration martial law on December 3 was also one of the main reasons the DP cited in impeaching the prime minister. The DP suspected Han of calling a Cabinet meeting to make a legitimate environment for Yoon to declare martial law. For the DP, Han is one of the accomplices in Yoon’s alleged treason, as he did not actively refuse to follow the illegitimate order from the president. Even though Han admitted that there were procedural flaws when the Cabinet meeting was held, the court did not accept the DP’s accusations that Han was deeply involved in Yoon’s declaration of martial law.
There were other points the DP brought up in the bill to impeach Han, but none of them was accepted as a “grave violation” of the constitution by the court.
Following the verdict on Monday, Han thanked the Constitutional Court for its decision and released a statement showing his will to integrate the country and to come up with plans to deal with U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff war against the country. Han, who is back in office as acting president, also asked for bipartisan support to implement the administration’s initiatives.
Many in South Korea assume that the court’s decision on Han’s impeachment would hold clues as to its still-pending verdict on Yoon. However, as the Constitutional Court had not made any ruling on the legitimacy of the martial law per se, it is still unpredictable on how the justices would decide Yoon’s impeachment case.
As noted above, the DP voted to impeach Han after he refused to approve the appointments of three justices for the Constitutional Court who were nominated by the parliament. (Two of them were recommended by the DP and the one by the ruling People Power Party. At the time, the Constitutional Court had only six justices – which raised questions on how the court would proceed with the impeachment trial of Yoon. Under the constitution, there should be nine justices in the court to decide whether to uphold impeachment of the president and other government officials.
Choi Sang-mok, who became the acting president after Han’s impeachment by the National Assembly, approved the appointments of two of the justices, but sent the third back for reconsideration. The Constitutional Court issued a ruling that that his refusal to approve the final justice is unconstitutional, but Choi still did not move to make the appointment. Last week, Park Chan-dae, the floor leader of the DP, said his party will engage in moves to impeach Choi for refusing to comply with the court’s ruling.
The DP and the opposition parties submitted a bill calling for impeaching Choi on March 21. However, this bill is unlikely to see a vote now that Han has returned to office and Choi is no longer acting president.
It now falls to Han, as acting president once again, to approve the appointment of the remaining justice. He’s unlikely do so until the Constitutional Court issues its verdict on Yoon.
Following the court’s ruling on Han, the PPP welcomed the decision while the DP expressed regret over it. Han’s case also added to fears that the court might reject the impeachment of Yoon, who declared martial law illegally and deployed martial law troops to the National Assembly to impede the lawmakers’ moves to lift the martial law.
Concern to that end was already growing, as the Constitutional Court has delayed its verdict on Yoon. The ruling was initially expected to come around March 14, considering the timeline for the court to issue a final verdict on impeached presidents in the past. The court has not revealed the reasons for the delay, and it still has not announced the date for its ruling on Yoon. However, many expect the court to deliver a verdict on Yoon by the end of March, as there are two senior justices whose terms end in April.
If the Constitutional Court upholds Yoon’s impeachment, he will permanently be removed from office and the country will hold a special presidential election within 60 days. If the court overturns his impeachment, Yoon will immediately be returned to office to serve as the president of South Korea until the end of his original term, May 9, 2027.
