By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The South Korean National Assembly voted to impeach acting president Han Duck-soo, with 192 lawmakers supporting the motion. This follows the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol two weeks prior, and stems from Han’s refusal to fully cooperate with the impeachment process. Protests erupted in parliament during the vote, with the ruling party claiming procedural irregularities. Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok will serve as acting president while the Constitutional Court reviews the impeachment within the next 180 days.
Read the original article here
South Korea’s political landscape is once again shaken by an impeachment vote, this time targeting acting President Han Duck-soo. The primary catalyst for this dramatic move appears to be his refusal to approve the appointment of three new justices to the Constitutional Court, a move mandated by the National Assembly. This refusal is seen as a deliberate obstruction of the ongoing impeachment proceedings against President Yoon Suk Yeol.
The current Constitutional Court has only six acting justices, and the full complement of nine is needed to rule on the president’s impeachment. However, with only six members, all would have to agree for a conviction. The addition of three new justices, whose appointments were stalled by the acting president, was intended to resolve the potential for deadlock. The concern is the existing justice appointed by the sitting president might not vote for his impeachment. This decision by the acting president directly contradicts the National Assembly’s previous agreement on the appointments and fuels the growing calls for his removal.
Another factor, while seemingly secondary, involves the special prosecutor investigating the president’s wife. However, the core issue remains the stalled appointments to the Constitutional Court, highlighting the deep-seated power struggle within South Korea’s government. The National Assembly’s strategy appears to be a game of political chicken; they will continue to impeach acting presidents until the deadlock on judicial appointments is resolved. The threat of further impeachments hangs heavy in the air, as it’s suggested that the next acting president also supports the vetoed appointments, creating a seemingly endless loop of political conflict.
The impeachment process in South Korea, unlike in the United States, has some unique features. While the US uses a two-step process with the House initiating impeachment and the Senate conducting the trial, South Korea’s process places the decision in the hands of the Constitutional Court. The Court, however, currently faces challenges with a reduced number of justices. The existing court has ruled that it could move forward with six justices, instead of the usual nine, requiring unanimous agreement on the impeachment. The vote in the National Assembly to impeach the acting president fell short of the two-thirds quorum needed to impeach a president but exceeded the simple majority required to impeach a cabinet member. This ambiguous legal standing concerning impeaching an acting president further complicates the situation. The absence of precedent for impeaching an acting president leaves the legal basis of this impeachment open to further scrutiny by the Constitutional Court.
The political implications are far-reaching. Han Duck-soo’s temporary removal from office will now trigger a review by the Constitutional Court, determining whether or not the impeachment is valid and deciding the president’s fate. A guilty verdict would lead to permanent removal from office, while an acquittal reinstates his position. The current situation illustrates South Korea’s often turbulent political environment. The frequency of impeachments underscores the country’s ongoing struggles with corruption and a perceived lack of accountability. The actions of the National Assembly show a commitment to their version of the rule of law, even if it leads to this level of political instability. The ongoing impeachment efforts expose deep divisions and conflicts within the South Korean government and raise serious questions about the balance of power and the efficiency of its governmental checks and balances.
The constant cycle of impeachment and acting presidents also underlines the unique challenges of South Korea’s presidential system. The five-year single term and the sequence of succession further complicate matters. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the scope of authority vested in acting presidents, as their roles are defined by fulfilling presidential duties until a successor is elected. This ongoing crisis showcases the complex interplay between the legislative and judicial branches, further highlighting the volatility of South Korean politics.
This event, while dramatic, is not entirely unprecedented. South Korea has a history of political turmoil, marked by past impeachments, resignations, and even assassinations. The current situation, however, holds a unique significance given the context of President Yoon’s own impeachment and the ensuing power vacuum. The precedent set by this case will have lasting effects on South Korea’s political system and its ability to navigate future crises. The ongoing crisis underlines the need for clear legal guidelines on the impeachment of acting presidents and the imperative for greater stability within the South Korean government. It also showcases the inherent difficulties in balancing democratic principles with the realities of a dynamic and sometimes volatile political landscape.