While serving as acting president shortly after the debacle, Han has been suspended from his duties due to his refusal to appoint three justice nominees to he highest court along with several other allegations.
Additional accusations included his involvement in Yoon's Dec. 3 declaration of martial law, an attempt to jointly govern state affairs with former ruling People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon, as well as his reluctance to appoint a prosecutor for an independent probe into the debacle and other allegations involving the first couple.
The ruling on Han's impeachment case, scheduled for next Monday, about three months after he was impeached by the National Assembly on Dec. 27, is expected to assess whether there were any procedural flaws in the process.
The court also may need to determine the legality of an investigation into the debacle by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), which is not entitled to prosecute a suspect and lacks authority over the insurrection charges brought against Yoon. The court must clarify these issues in order to deliver its ruling on Han, which would provide a clue as to how it may approach Yoon's case.
First of all, the court should examine whether Han’s impeachment procedure was conducted properly in parliament. More specifically, it must determine whether the required quorum should have been based on the threshold for a prime minister (151 votes) or that of a president (200 votes), given that he was serving as acting president at the time.
Since the National Assembly passed Han's impeachment with 151 votes, if the court finds that the threshold should have been based on 200, it will dismiss the case without considering the rest. This means the court would not rule on whether Han conspired with, neglected, or condoned Yoon over his abrupt overnight fiasco, which threw the country into political turmoil.
Some legal experts say that dismissing the case on procedural grounds would be the least contentious option for the court. The court wrapped up Han's case with a single hearing last month, which lasted only 90 minutes, a broader sign that it did not find it particularly disputable. During the hearing, Han testified that he had no involvement in the debacle, claiming that he was unaware of it until the last minute and tried to persuade Yoon to stop once he was informed.
While various predictions are swirling ahead of the ruling, many legal experts believe that most of Han's allegations, mostly raised by the main opposition Democratic Party with its parliamentary majority, appear to be either trivial or insufficient grounds for his dismissal, even if there are some legal violations.
But a possibility still remains that the court may uphold Han's impeachment. In a separate case late last month, the court ruled that Acting President Choi Sang-mok had infringed upon the National Assembly's legislative power by failing to appoint Ma Eun-hyuk, a justice nominee recommended by the main opposition Democratic Party. Given the precedent, the court could find Han's refusal to appoint him as valid grounds for impeachment.
If upheld, Han will be stripped of his post. Otherwise, he will immediately return to his job.
Considering that there is a slim chance of a same-day or last-minute notice along with DP leader Lee Jae-myung's appellate ruling on charges of making false statements, which would constitute a violation of election law scheduled for Wednesday, the most likely days for Yoon's verdict would be next Thursday or Friday.
However, if the court wants to take more time to deliberate, Yoon's ruling could be postponed until early April, but not later than April 18, when two justices Moon Hyung-bae and Lee Mi-sun from the eight-member bench are set to retire.
reporter
Park Sae-jin
swatchsjp@ajunews.com
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.
View more comments