Why Did the Constitutional Court of South Korea Reject the Impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo?

Why Did the Constitutional Court of South Korea Reject the Impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo?

In South Korea, the impeachment of high-ranking officials is a rare but significant political event. The impeachment process is designed to ensure accountability for serious violations of the law or abuse of power. However, not all impeachment attempts are successful, as was the case with Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, when the Constitutional Court of South Korea rejected his impeachment motion. The decision was based on legal, procedural, and political factors.

Legal Framework for Impeachment in South Korea

The impeachment of government officials in South Korea is stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the National Assembly Act. Under Article 65(1) of the Constitution, the National Assembly may pass a motion to impeach high-ranking officials, including the President, Prime Minister, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, if they violate the Constitution or other laws in the performance of their duties.

The impeachment process consists of two main stages:

1. Impeachment proposal in the National Assembly: The proposal must be submitted by a majority of the National Assembly members and requires at least two-thirds of the votes of the members present.
2. Review by the Constitutional Court: If the proposal is passed, the Constitutional Court will review it and decide whether to accept or reject the impeachment. At least six of the nine justices must agree for the impeachment to take effect.

For an impeachment to be successful, the Constitutional Court must determine that the official’s actions were a serious violation of the law or a serious breach of public trust. If the court rejects the impeachment, the official will continue in office.
Background of the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, a veteran diplomat and official, served as Prime Minister under President Yoon Suk-yeol. The impeachment motion was filed by opposition lawmakers on the following charges:

1. Poor economic policy management
   He has been criticized for policies that have exacerbated inflation and unemployment.
2. Poor response to disasters
   He has been blamed for incidents such as the 2022 Seoul Halloween stampede and other public safety incidents.
3. Allegations of corruption and ethical violations
   Some lawmakers have said he has conflicts of interest and has failed to adhere to ethical standards.
4. Undermining the democratic process
   Opposition parties have accused him of supporting policies that undermine democratic institutions.

However, the impeachment motion has been met with skepticism from legal experts, who have questioned whether the allegations meet the constitutional standards for impeachment.

Reasons the Constitutional Court Rejected Impeachment

The Constitutional Court made the following main arguments in rejecting the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo:

1. No clear violation of the Constitution or law
   The court ruled that the charges were not sufficient to establish that Mr. Han committed a serious crime or abused his power. Although his policies were controversial, there was no evidence of illegal behavior.
2. Political disputes are not grounds for impeachment
   The court stressed that impeachment is a last resort, not a tool to resolve political disagreements. Many of the charges were simply disagreements over policy, not impeachable behavior. The court warned that using impeachment as a political weapon could cause instability.
3. Lack of evidence of gross negligence
   Despite criticism of his handling of the disaster, the court found no evidence that Mr. Han was intentionally negligent or seriously negligent. Unlike the **impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017 (who was convicted of corruption), Mr. Han’s case lacks clear evidence.
4. Concerns about the separation of powers
   The court held that removing the prime minister over policy disagreements could disrupt the functioning of the executive branch. Since the prime minister is appointed by the president, political responsibility should be resolved through elections and parliamentary oversight, not impeachment.
5. Precedents from previous impeachments
   The court cited previous rulings, such as the 2004 impeachment of President Roh Moo-hyun (which was dismissed), to assert that impeachment requires a clear legal basis, not just political discontent.

Political Implications of the Decision

The rejection of the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo has several political implications:

1. Strengthens President Yoon’s Administration
   This is a victory for President Yoon Suk-yeol, helping to maintain cabinet stability. If Han is impeached, Yoon will have to appoint a new Prime Minister, disrupting the agenda.
2. Weakens the Opposition’s Influence
   This failure undermines the credibility of opposition parties (such as the Democratic Party), showing that impeachment efforts can backfire if they lack legal grounds.
3. Public Opinion Views Impeachment as a Political Tool
   Many citizens view impeachment as a partisan ploy rather than an effort to protect accountability. This could undermine confidence in future impeachments.
4. Impact on Future Impeachments
   The Constitutional Court’s high bar may make the opposition hesitant when there is no clear evidence of a crime.

Comparative Analysis: Why Some Impeachments Succeed and Others Fail
South Korea has had both successful and failed impeachments:

Successful: Park Geun-hye (2017) – Impeached for corruption.

Failed: Roh Moo-hyun (2004) – Remained in office due to lack of legal basis.

Han’s case is similar to Roh’s, with the court prioritizing legal standards over political disputes.

Conclusion
The Constitutional Court’s rejection of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s impeachment affirms that impeachment is a legal mechanism, not a political tool. The decision emphasizes that policy disagreement or administrative failure, without legal violations, are not sufficient grounds for removal from office.

The ruling is important for South Korean democracy, reinforcing the principle that impeachment must be based on serious constitutional violations, not just political conflicts. While some have argued that the court shielded Mr. Han from accountability, the final decision helped stabilize the Yoon administration and set a precedent for future impeachments.

As South Korea’s politics continue to evolve, balancing accountability and political stability will be a major challenge. The impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo is a reminder that while democratic oversight is necessary, impeachment should not be used for partisan purposes.