On March 24, the Constitutional Court of South Korea canceled the indictment of Prime Minister Han Duck-Soo, which was suspended from its functions by a vote of the National Assembly on December 27. With five of the eight judges who have chosen to reject and two judges who governed to reject the indictment, Han was reintegration as Prime Minister as well as the president of theater. A single judge confirmed Han’s dismissal.
Han’s dismissal in the National Assembly occurred 13 days after the Parliament adopted the bill calling for the dismissal of President Yoon Suk-Yeol following his unsuccessful attempt to grasp unconditional power through martial law. Han had assumed the role of interim president until his own dismissal. Although the Parliament has adopted the bill calling for the indictment of Yoon almost two weeks before that of Han, the Constitutional Court first rendered its decision on the case of Han – even if it hinted that the case of Yoon would be an absolute priority to manage.
The Democratic Party had dismissed Han because of his refusal to appoint three judges appointed by the National Assembly. In its verdict, the court declared that Han’s refusal to appoint three judges appointed by the National Assembly was unconstitutional, accepting this part of the DP’s request. However, the court ruled that this law was not enough to be removed from its functions permanently. The judges found that there was not enough evidence and facts to prove that Han tried to neutralize the accusation of the Constitutional Court involving Yoon.
The role of Han as Prime Minister during the Martial Law of the Yoon Declaration on December 3 was also one of the main reasons for which the DP cited in the dismissal of the Prime Minister. The DP suspected Han to call a meeting of the cabinet to create a legitimate environment for Yoon to declare martial law. For the DP, Han is one of the accomplices of the alleged betrayal of Yoon, because he did not actively refuse to follow the president’s illegitimate order. Even if Han admitted that there were procedural faults at the meeting of the cabinet, the court did not accept the accusations of the DP according to which Han was deeply involved in the declaration of Martial law of Yoon.
There were other points that the DP raised in the bill to dismiss Han, but none of them was accepted as a “serious violation” of the Constitution by the Court.
After the verdict on Monday, Han thanked the Constitutional Court for his decision and published a statement showing his desire to integrate the country and to propose plans to face the pricing war of US President Donald Trump against the country. Han, who is back in office as acting president, also asked for bipartite support to implement the administration’s initiatives.
Many in South Korea assume that the court’s decision on the dismissal of Han would have indications on his Verdict still pending on Yoon. However, as the Constitutional Court had no decision on the legitimacy of martial law in itself, it is always unpredictable on the way in which the judges would decide on the case of indictment of Yoon.
As indicated above, the DP voted to dismiss Han after refusing to approve the appointments of three judges for the Constitutional Court which were appointed by the Parliament. (Two of them were recommended by the DP and that by the part of the power of the people in power. At the time, the Constitutional Court had only six judges – which raised questions on the way in which the Court would proceed to the indictment of Yoon. By virtue of the Constitution, there should be nine judges before the Court to decide to maintain the accusation of the president and other officials of the government.
Choi Sang-Mok, who became interim president after Han’s dismissal by the National Assembly, approved the appointments of two of the judges, but returned the third for review. The Constitutional Court made the decision that its refusal to approve the final justice is unconstitutional, but Choi has still not moved to make an appointment. Last week, Park Chan-Dae, the DP soil leader, said that his party will engage in moves to involve Choi for refusing to comply with the court’s decision.
The DP and the opposition parties submitted a bill calling for the dismissal of Choi on March 21. However, this bill will not see a vote now that Han is back in office and Choi is no longer president of action.
He now falls in Han, as an acting president once again, to approve the appointment of the remaining justice. It is unlikely that the Constitutional Court makes its verdict on Yoon.
Following the decision of the court on Han, the PPP welcomed the decision while the DP expressed its regret. The case of Han also added to the fears that the court could reject the dismissal of Yoon, which Declared martial law illegally And deployed martial law troops to the National Assembly to hinder the measures of the legislators to raise martial law.
Concern for this purpose already increased, such as the Constitutional Court delayed His verdict on Yoon. The decision was initially to arrive around March 14, taking into account the calendar so that the court returns a final verdict on the presidents dismissed in the past. The court has not revealed the reasons for the delay, and it has still not announced the date of its decision On Yoon. However, many expect the court to return a verdict on Yoon at the end of March, because there are two superior judges whose conditions end in April.
If the Constitutional Court confirms the dismissal of Yoon, it will be definitively removed from its functions and the country socket A special presidential election within 60 days. If the court cancels its dismissal, Yoon will be immediately returned to the post to be president of South Korea until the end of his original mandate, on May 9, 2027.