SEOUL, March 24 (AJP) - The Constitutional Court on Monday rejected the impeachment motion against Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, ruling that although the motion was procedurally valid, the alleged violations did not justify his removal from office.
In its ruling, the court stated that Han's actions could not be considered a grave breach of the law serious enough to deprive him of public trust. With the decision, Han returns to office 87 days after the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion on Dec. 27, 2024. He also resumes his duties as acting president, following the suspension of President Yoon Suk Yeol under separate impeachment proceedings.
A key issue in the case was whether the vote threshold for impeachment should follow the standard for a president or a cabinet member. National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik applied the 151-vote threshold used for cabinet officials, rather than the 200 votes required for presidential impeachment, even though Han was serving as acting president at the time.
The court backed the Assembly’s interpretation, stating there was no procedural flaw. "An acting president is not a newly created position under the Constitution or law, but merely a temporary executor of predetermined duties," the court said. "Therefore, the voting requirement for impeachment must be based on the original status of the official, which in this case is the prime minister."
Of the eight justices involved in the decision, five voted to reject the motion, one supported impeachment, and two called for dismissal on procedural grounds. Among the five who voted to reject, four found that Han did violate the Constitution and relevant laws by withholding the appointment of Constitutional Court justices recommended by the National Assembly. However, they concluded the violation was not serious enough to warrant removal, saying it was not sufficient to find that he had "betrayed the trust of the people."
The impeachment motion, brought by the Democratic Party and other opposition lawmakers, accused Han of complicity, tolerance, or negligence in connection to President Yoon Suk Yeol's alleged insurrection through the December 3 martial law declaration.
It also pointed to Han's refusal to appoint three Constitutional Court justices nominated by the Assembly, his avoidance of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the martial law case, his rejection of a special counsel bill involving First Lady Kim Keon Hee, and his alleged attempt to jointly govern with former ruling party leader Han Dong-hoon.
This marks the first final ruling by a constitutional body on a high-ranking official tied to the Dec. 3 martial law controversy. The decision is expected to influence the court’s upcoming verdict in the impeachment trial of President Yoon.
reporter
Park Sae-jin
swatchsjp@ajunews.com
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.
View more comments