How did Prime Minister Han Duck-soo get reinstated?

Acting leader returns to office 87 days after impeachment

By Kwak Yeon-soo

The Constitutional Court’s decision to dismiss a motion to impeach Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and reinstate him as acting president reflects that charges brought against him were not necessarily grave enough to warrant dismissal from office.

In Monday's ruling, five of the eight justices voted against the impeachment motion, while only one justice approved it. Two justices voted to reject the motion entirely, citing the lack of support from the two-thirds of the National Assembly required for presidential impeachments.

The ruling came 87 days after the National Assembly impeached Han over his alleged role in President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Dec. 3 martial law declaration, among other reasons.

At the heart of Han’s impeachment trial was his alleged involvement in the president’s martial law imposition, his refusal to appoint additional justices to the Constitutional Court, his refusal to designate a permanent special counsel to investigate insurrection charges against Yoon, his failure to promulgate two special counsel bills targeting Yoon and first lady Kim Keon Hee and his efforts to manage state affairs alongside former ruling People Power Party (PPP) leader Han Dong-hoon.

Proponent of martial law?

The prime minister questioned the validity of all grounds for his impeachment presented by the National Assembly, claiming that he opposed Yoon’s martial law declaration and had no involvement in the mobilization of troops.

The court said it found no evidence that Han had played an active role in planning or enforcing martial law, which was fully lifted about six hours after it was declared. It added that there was no objective evidence to support the idea that convening a Cabinet meeting ahead of the martial law imposition was intended to give it legitimacy.

Han testified that he had no prior knowledge of Yoon’s plan to impose martial law. He said he had tried to block the president from declaring martial law at the Cabinet meeting, but failed to do so. The National Assembly’s legal representatives, on the other hand, argued that Han helped Yoon to meet the procedural requirements of martial law by convening the Cabinet meeting.

Failure to appoint justices

Four of the five justices who voted to dismiss Han’s impeachment acknowledged that his refusal to appoint three justices to the Constitutional Court was unconstitutional, but said that it was not sufficient to justify his removal from office.

Han argued that the appointment of Constitutional Court justices is an authority granted solely to the president or acting president under the Constitution and, therefore, does not constitute grounds for impeachment. In contrast, the National Assembly’s legal representatives asserted that the grounds for impeachment were undeniably clear.

Justice Kim Bok-hyeong issued a dissenting statement, saying, "It is reasonable to interpret that the acting president has the right to appoint justices within a reasonable period of time, rather than immediately."

The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) demanded Han appoint opposition-recommended Ma Eun-hyuk as the ninth justice of the Constitutional Court. However, Han evaded the issue when asked about his plans to appoint Ma.

Legality of quorum

All but two justices sided with the National Assembly on the question of quorum, ruling that the quorum required to impeach Han was 151 out of 300 lawmakers — the minimum that applies to a prime minister, rather than the 200 required for a president.

The National Assembly’s legal representatives argued that the impeachment should follow the standard for Cabinet ministers, requiring a majority vote of at least 151 lawmakers. However, Han said the presidential impeachment standard should apply, requiring a two-thirds majority — at least 200 votes — for approval.

Two justices — Cheong Hyung-sik and Cho Han-chang — issued a dissenting opinion saying that the quorum for a president should have been applied to Han's case as he was performing presidential duties in the wake of Yoon’s impeachment. Citing this reason, they voted to reject the impeachment motion entirely.

Justice Chung Kye-sun was the sole justice to uphold Han’s impeachment, arguing that he failed to promptly request the recommendation of a special prosecutor to investigate insurrection charges against Yoon over his martial law declaration.

Although the court did not rule on the legality of the martial law declaration itself, it offered insight into its reasoning ahead of a ruling on Yoon’s impeachment.

“It’s sort of self-contradictory for the Constitutional Court to acknowledge that Han violated the law in his decision to withhold the appointment of additional justices but dismiss his impeachment,” said Kim Seon-taek, a constitutional law professor at Korea University.

“Although today’s ruling does not have a direct correlation with Yoon’s impeachment ruling, the divisive ruling hints that Yoon’s case may drag on longer given that the justices have been unable to reach a consensus on Yoon's case. Dissenting opinions by several justices point to the fact that they place great value on the formality and procedures.”

The Constitutional Court has yet to announce the date of its ruling on Yoon’s case, although many observers anticipate it could come later this week.