SEOUL, South Korea — The situation surrounding South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol is intensifying, as he has declined multiple requests from investigative authorities to be questioned regarding his recent martial law declaration. This development coincided with the Constitutional Court’s initial session on Monday, focusing on whether to officially remove or reinstate him following his impeachment.
A coalition of investigative bodies, including police, anti-corruption officials, and representatives from the Defense Ministry, is eager to interrogate Yoon concerning allegations of rebellion and misuse of power linked to his controversial decree. On Monday, efforts were made to deliver a formal request to Yoon’s office; however, these attempts were reportedly thwarted as officials declined to accept the request, according to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials.
Son Yeong-jo, an investigator, noted the presidential secretarial staff expressed uncertainty about their responsibility to relay the request to the impeached president. The investigative team also stated they had sent the request via mail to Yoon, but declined to discuss their contingencies if he continues to ignore the summons. Yoon was impeached by the opposition-dominated National Assembly on Saturday due to his martial law directive issued on December 3. Consequently, his presidential authority has been suspended, with the Constitutional Court now set to determine his fate. Should the court decide to remove him, a national election to appoint a replacement must occur within 60 days.
Yoon has defended his decision to enforce martial law, framing it as a necessary response to opposition from the Democratic Party, which he has labeled “anti-state forces” obstructing his agenda. He declared his intention to actively resist actions aimed at his ouster. In recent days, significant protests have erupted across Seoul, with demonstrators demanding his resignation and arrest.
Uncertainty remains regarding whether Yoon will acquiesce to the requests from investigators. Reports indicate that South Korean prosecutors pursuing a different investigation into the martial law situation also requested to question Yoon, but he declined to honor that invitation. Attempts to reach prosecutors for comments on the matter went unanswered. Furthermore, Yoon’s security service has reportedly obstructed police efforts to conduct a search of his office for evidence.
On Monday, the Constitutional Court convened for the first time to deliberate over Yoon’s case, with a maximum of 180 days allowed for a ruling. However, analysts suggest that a quicker decision may be forthcoming. Historical precedence indicates that the court ruled in 63 days and 91 days respectively for past impeachments of former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun in 2004 and Park Geun-hye in 2016.
Justice Kim Hyungdu indicated to the media that the court aims to reach a resolution that is both “swift” and “fair,” with the meeting’s primary focus on case preparatory procedures and the structuring of arguments for upcoming formal discussions. Court spokesperson Lee Jean announced that the first pretrial hearing is scheduled for December 27. To uphold Yoon’s impeachment, support is required from at least six of the nine justices; however, three seats are currently unfilled, necessitating a unanimous decision among the present six justices to officially conclude his presidency. Kim expressed expectations that the vacant positions would be filled by the end of the month.
In the aftermath of Yoon’s impeachment, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, now acting as the country’s leader, alongside other officials, has attempted to reassure both international allies and financial markets amidst the political upheaval that has disrupted diplomacy and aggravated economic challenges. Meanwhile, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung has urged the Constitutional Court to expedite its ruling on Yoon’s impeachment and proposed establishing a special council for cooperative policymaking between the government and legislature. This proposal received backlash from Yoon’s People Power Party, which deemed it inappropriate for the opposition to behave like a governing body.
Lee, known for aggressively challenging Yoon’s administration, is considered a leading candidate to succeed him, having narrowly lost the 2022 presidential election to Yoon. The impeachment has deepened divisions within the People Power Party, as evidenced by the resignation announcement from PPP chair Han Dong-hun, who has been vocal in his criticism of Yoon’s martial law measures.
Han noted in a press conference, “If martial law had not been lifted that night, a bloody incident could have erupted that morning between the citizens who would have taken to the streets and our young soldiers.” Yoon’s martial law, implemented for the first time in over four decades, echoed the authoritarian practices not seen since the 1980s, and he was compelled to revoke it just hours later after the parliament unanimously voted against it. Yoon’s deployment of forces to the parliament in an attempt to prevent the vote ultimately resulted in their withdrawal once the decree was rejected, and fortunately, no significant violence ensued.
Opposition groups have accused Yoon of rebellion, highlighting that martial law can only be declared by a South Korean president during wartime or other similar emergencies, and emphasizing that he held no authority to suspend parliamentary functions even in those circumstances.
