The Maturation of the Korean Republic

Photo by Clark Gu on Unsplash

Introduction

This article serves as a sequel to “The Growing Pains of Korean Democracy.” On April 4th, 2025, at 11:22 a.m. Korean Standard Time, the Constitutional Court of Korea impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol with an 8-0 majority and effectively removed him from office. The verdict from the Constitutional Court seems to point to inherent issues in the young Asian republic besides the actions of President Yoon in his martial law declaration. Considering these issues, the Republic of Korea has taken the first step in solving them, identifying that they exist and that democracy in Korea is not in doubt. 

The Constitutional Court’s Verdict: Fighting Political Fires

While a majority of the Constitutional Court’s decision dealt with the impeachment of President Yoon from office for his martial law declaration on December 3, 2024, this was not the only focus of the Court’s ire. Indeed, the Constitutional Court also criticized the actions of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) in its legislative motions and general irresponsibility as the majority party in the National Assembly. To fully encapsulate this decision rendered by the Constitutional Court, this section will go into depth about both President Yoon’s impeachment verdict and the Constitutional Court’s criticism of the DPK. 

The Constitutional Court spends the majority of its opinion to hold that President Yoon did not have proper justification to declare martial law and that in doing so, President Yoon caused substantial harm to the civil liberties of the people of the Republic of Korea. In regards to the justification that President Yoon offered of investigating election fraud, this was deemed as unsatisfactory in terms of qualifying as a national or wartime emergency by the Constitutional Court. Essentially, the Constitutional Court decided that the justification of election fraud was insufficient as an “objective justifiable threat” to national security. 

Further, the Constitutional Court went on to rule that President Yoon’s use of the military and police forces against the National Assembly and the National Election Commission, were unconstitutional. President Yoon’s use of the military to lock down the National Assembly distorted the duty of the Korean military, to defend the nation, to fit a political agenda instead. Additionally, the searches conducted by the soldiers into the National Election Commission were deemed to be warrantless and thus violated the Commission's independent status as a judicial entity.

But even considering the Constitutional Court’s main rendering that President Yoon shall be removed from presidential office, there is also much to be said in regards to the equally important critique given by the Constitutional Court against the impeaching DPK. The National Assembly, the legislative body of the Republic of Korea under the majority rule of the DPK, rather than seeking to cooperate or engage in dialogue with the other parties, stubbornly attempted to impeach various members of the President’s cabinet. These motions to impeach amounted to twenty-two although only two were pending at the time of the martial law declaration. In attempting to bully and intimidate the minority opinions in the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court sharply critiqued the DPK for its refusal to be tolerant or exercise restraint. 

Deja Vu: Korea’s Second Impeached President

In recent history, President Yoon is the second president of the Republic of Korea to be impeached, joining former President Park Geun-hye. There exist some similarities but also differences between the two ousted Presidents. Both were ousted by a unanimous vote from the Constitutional Court although the margins by which they were impeached in the National Assembly differed substantially. While President Park was impeached with a 78% majority in the National Assembly, President Yoon was impeached with a 68% majority which illustrates a substantial 10% difference between the two. 

But the more significant similarity lies in the response of the Korean people during and immediately following the impeachments of both Presidents Park and Yoon. While the passion and drive of both those who were for and against impeachment cannot be denied, similarly it can be stated that the protests did not descend into violent riots. Although thousands and in some cases, millions, of protestors both for and against impeachment lined the streets of Seoul, there were no significant incidents of violence or death, a far cry from the draconian authoritarian methods that had been used to suppress such protests in Korea’s past, such as utilizing tear gas and, in some cases, even gunning down protestors. 

Conclusion: A Democracy Stabilized

So the question will be asked, what lesson can be learned from this impeachment decision rendered by the Constitutional Court? The answer presents itself, that democracy in the Republic of Korea must be honored, not only by the President with his vast executive powers but also by the National Assembly with its large reserves of bureaucratic potency. Further, as in any republic, Korea’s future lies in the hands of its people and their response to these crises. Rather than resorting to barbaric acts of riotous behavior such as storming democratic institutions or burning shops and buildings, the people must learn to accept the ruling of the courts and honor their decisions. This effect is seen most directly in the majority of Koreans opposing President Yoon’s return to politics following his impeachment. 

I would like to conclude this article with a quote directly from the Constitutional Court’s verdict which conveys this idea of democracy: “The respondent’s (President Yoon’s) assessment that the National Assembly’s exercise of power constituted an abuse or a cause of national paralysis should be worthy of political respect. However, the conflict between the respondent and the National Assembly cannot be attributed to one side alone. It is a political issue that must be resolved through democratic principles. Political opinions or public decisions on such matters must be expressed and made within the scope compatible with constitutionally guaranteed democracy.”

*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.