SEOUL, South Korea — On Friday, South Korea’s interim leadership accepted the resignation of Park Jong-joon, the head of the presidential security service. This decision came as Park faced police inquiries regarding his team’s obstruction of efforts to detain the recently impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol. The circumstances surrounding his resignation were highlighted by the ongoing clashes between law enforcement and the presidential security service, prompting Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok to call for a bipartisan agreement to initiate an independent investigation into the events that transpired.
Presently, both the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials and police are strategizing a second attempt to apprehend Yoon, amidst inquiries whether his brief imposition of martial law on December 3 could be classified as an attempted rebellion. Previously, presidential security personnel obstructed an attempt to detain Yoon at his official residence, where he has remained for several weeks. The implications of Park’s resignation and Choi’s recommendations for an independent investigation on Yoon’s potential detention are still uncertain.
Choi acknowledged the government’s ongoing efforts to find a wise resolution, but noted that the existing legal framework complicates resolving the tensions between the anti-corruption body and the presidential security service regarding Yoon’s prospective arrest. He appealed to both the ruling and opposition party members to join forces in agreeing on legislation to establish a special prosecutor’s investigation that would avoid constitutional complications, aiming to mitigate the current standoff.
On Thursday, opposition lawmakers proposed a bill calling for an independent inquiry into allegations of rebellion against Yoon. An earlier bill proposed by the opposition had failed after members of Yoon’s conservative party opposed a provision that limited recommendations for special prosecutor candidates to just opposition members. The new proposal has also failed to gather conservative support; it stipulates that the chief justice of the Supreme Court would recommend two candidates to Yoon, who would choose one as the special prosecutor. If Yoon declines to appoint a candidate, the elder of the two would automatically assume the role.
Park has disregarded two summons before finally appearing for questioning on Friday regarding claims of obstructing justice, coming a week after his personnel barred numerous anti-corruption and police investigators from accessing Yoon’s official residence. He claimed his responsibilities include the president’s protection and warned of potential “bloodshed,” as critics accused his agency of transforming into Yoon’s private militia. Currently, Yoon is secluded in his official residence in Seoul, which has been heavily fortified by the presidential security service with barbed wire and barricades of vehicles.
Yoon’s declaration of martial law on December 3 was short-lived, lasting only hours as legislators successfully breached the blockade and lifted the measure. Following an impeachment vote by the opposition-controlled Assembly on December 14, which suspended Yoon’s presidential powers and accused him of rebellion, his future now depends on the Constitutional Court’s deliberation on whether to remove him from office or dismiss the charges.
A new detention warrant was issued by a Seoul court for the anti-corruption agency to detain Yoon after a previous one-week warrant expired. However, the agency and police have not revealed the duration for which this new warrant will remain valid. Upon arrival for questioning, Park reiterated his stance against Yoon’s arrest efforts, insisting that any investigation should align with the dignity of the nation and the standing of an incumbent president.
Park expressed concern regarding the potential for conflict between government agencies and mentioned that he had reached out to Choi several times, advocating for alternative approaches with law enforcement but with little success. The anti-corruption agency had also criticized Choi for not directing the presidential security service to cooperate with the execution of the arrest warrant.
While the presidential security act is designed to safeguard Yoon, it does not grant the security service the authority to obstruct court-ordered arrests, and some legal experts suggest that last week’s actions by the security service may have been unlawful. When queried in parliament about the security service’s blocking of the arrest attempt, National Court Administration head Cheon Dae-yeop remarked on Friday that resistance against legal authority without just reason could amount to obstruction of official duties.
Despite the president’s extensive immunity from prosecution during his term, this protection does not extend to charges of rebellion or treason. Yoon’s legal team has raised questions regarding the validity of the new detention warrant from the Seoul Western District Court, maintaining that the anti-corruption agency does not possess the authority to investigate claims of rebellion or to command police detentions. Furthermore, they argue that the agency cannot enforce arrest and search warrants at Yoon’s residence due to legal protections that safeguard locations potentially associated with military secrets from searches without consent.
Yoon’s attorneys have urged the agency either to indict the president or pursue a formal arrest warrant, a course necessitating a court hearing. They stated that Yoon would only acknowledge an arrest warrant issued by the Seoul Central District Court, responsible for managing the primary requests in significant cases. They accuse the agency of intentionally selecting another court where they believe the judge may be more favorable, even though Yoon’s official residence falls under the jurisdiction of the Western District Court.
