SEOUL, South Korea — The acting leader of South Korea announced on Thursday his intention to veto a series of controversial bills backed by the primary opposition party, adding to the existing political tensions following the National Assembly’s impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol. This decision came against a backdrop of disputes regarding the extent of authority held by Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who has assumed a central role since the opposition-led assembly suspended Yoon’s presidential powers last Saturday over his brief imposition of martial law on December 3. The Constitutional Court is now tasked with deciding whether to officially remove Yoon from office or restore his powers.

Authorities are also conducting separate inquiries to determine if Yoon’s martial law declaration constituted an act of rebellion. Several high-ranking officials, including the defense minister and police chief, have already faced arrest in connection with the ongoing investigation. Although the main liberal opposition party, the Democratic Party, initially explored the possibility of impeaching Han for not intervening to halt Yoon’s martial law declaration, they abandoned this notion after he stepped into the role of acting leader.

Of the six bills slated for veto by Han, four focus on enhancing state financial support for the agriculture and fisheries sectors. The most debated legislation is the Grain Management Act, which would compel the government to purchase excess rice from farmers in the event of sharp price declines, aimed at safeguarding the farming industry and ensuring food sovereignty. Han argued that this bill would impose “immense” financial strain on the government and potentially exacerbate declines in rice prices.

Additionally, the National Assembly Testimony Appraisal Act is under scrutiny, as it would empower lawmakers to require individuals to attend hearings and submit documents. The proposed bill removes the option for individuals to decline these requests on the grounds of protecting trade secrets or personal privacy. The Democratic Party has asserted that this legislation is crucial for obtaining complete details related to Yoon’s martial law decree, while Han has cautioned that it could infringe on privacy rights, raising concerns among business leaders about potential leaks of sensitive information.

In a televised address at the opening of a Cabinet Council meeting, Han expressed regret in having to reject the bills, stating, “I’ve urged the National Assembly to revisit and discuss the six bills at a time when we can ill afford to be divided.” He emphasized that the government must make choices that uphold constitutional values and prioritize the nation’s future.

Democratic Party lawmaker and spokesperson Noh Jongmyun promptly criticized Han’s decision, warning him against crossing any limits and asserting that they would swiftly respond if it appeared he had collaborated in any rebellious actions.

Political analysts have noted that the Democratic Party might reconsider the impeachment of Han, depending on his course of action regarding the vetoed bills. Another contentious issue includes whether Han possesses the authority to fill three vacant justices’ seats at the Constitutional Court, as the appointments could sway the court’s ruling on Yoon’s status.

Although Yoon’s martial law announcement lasted merely six hours, it triggered considerable political upheaval and raised alarms among neighboring countries and international partners. In a bid to prevent a vote on his decree, Yoon deployed hundreds of troops to the National Assembly. However, many lawmakers successfully entered the parliamentary building and unanimously voted to reject the decree, compelling Yoon’s administration to rescind the martial law.

Yoon has characterized his actions as a necessary governing measure, alleging that the Democratic Party has inappropriately used its parliamentary majority to obstruct his policies. During a meeting with foreign journalists, Seok Dong-hyeon, a lawyer and spokesperson for Yoon’s emerging legal team, supported Yoon’s stance, asserting that the actions did not amount to rebellion. Seok maintained that Yoon did not seek to disrupt parliamentary functions, denying allegations he ordered military intervention against political adversaries, including Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung.

Seok elaborated, stating, “Why would a rebellion be announced through a press conference meant for public broadcast?” He suggested that Yoon adhered to the constitutional process, referencing how the National Assembly acted to lift martial law within a few hours. He also noted that Yoon might attend the Constitutional Court to present his defense directly. When pressed about whether Yoon would comply with law enforcement requests for questioning or searches of his office, Seok refrained from providing specific details, indicating those matters would be addressed by Yoon’s nearly established legal team.