SEOUL, South Korea — The acting leader of South Korea has accepted the resignation of Park Jong-joon, the head of the presidential security service. This decision comes as Park is being questioned by police regarding allegations that his team obstructed law enforcement’s attempts to arrest impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol last week.
Acting Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok expressed his regret over the violent encounters between law enforcement and the security service. He called for a bipartisan effort from lawmakers to initiate an independent investigation into the matter.
Authorities, including the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials and police, are preparing for another attempt to take Yoon into custody as they investigate whether his brief martial law declaration on December 3 could be construed as an attempted rebellion. Previously, the presidential security service successfully blocked 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 proposal for an independent investigation on the prospect of detaining Yoon remain unclear. Choi noted, “The government has been considering various options to resolve the situation, but it remains challenging to find a comprehensive solution given our current legal constraints, especially concerning the conflicts between the agencies involved.” He urged lawmakers from both sides to collaborate on developing a bill for a special prosecutor investigation that avoids constitutional challenges, believing it would help alleviate ongoing tensions.
The main opposition party, the Democratic Party, criticized Choi’s actions, claiming they validate Yoon’s noncompliance with a court-ordered warrant while masquerading as a call for neutrality. Lawmaker Noh Jong-myun described it as a “public endorsement of rebellious behavior.” The Democrats, along with other opposition factions, introduced a bill aimed at launching an independent investigation into the rebellion allegations against Yoon.
A previously proposed bill by the opposition was dismissed after Yoon’s conservative party objected to a provision that would allow only opposition members to recommend candidates for a special prosecutor. The conservatives have also withheld their support for the new bill, which stipulates that the chief justice of the Supreme Court would suggest two candidates to Yoon, who must select one as the special prosecutor. In the event Yoon declines to appoint either, the older of the two candidates would automatically ascend to that role.
Park had ignored two prior summonses before attending questioning on Friday regarding accusations of obstructing justice, just a week following his agency’s confrontation with law enforcement at Yoon’s official residence. He remarked that it is his duty to safeguard the president and hinted at potential violence, with opponents alleging that his agency is functioning as Yoon’s private militia.
Yoon continues to be confined within his official residence, which is heavily secured with barbed wire and extensive vehicle barricades. On December 3, he briefly declared martial law and deployed troops around the National Assembly, a move that lasted only a short time before lawmakers managed to breach the blockade and reverse the decision.
The president’s powers were suspended after the opposition-majority Assembly voted to impeach him on December 14, accusing him of rebellion. The final decision regarding Yoon lies with the Constitutional Court, which is currently deliberating whether to permanently remove him from office or dismiss the charges.
On Tuesday, a Seoul court issued a new warrant for Yoon’s arrest after the previous one expired. However, the anti-corruption agency and police have not revealed the duration for which the new warrant is valid.
At his arrival for questioning, Park reiterated his concerns regarding the detainment efforts, insisting that the investigation be handled in a manner befitting the dignity of the sitting president. He expressed hope to prevent violent confrontations, stressing the concern of citizens regarding the potential for conflict between government authorities.
Park indicated he had reached out to Choi to propose alternative approaches for cooperation with law enforcement and also contacted Yoon’s legal team, but stated he received no adequate responses. The anti-corruption agency has criticized Choi for not directing the presidential security service to facilitate the execution of the detain warrant.
Though the presidential security act mandates safeguarding Yoon, it does not empower his service to obstruct legally sanctioned detentions, and some legal scholars argue that their recent actions may have been illegal. In response to queries in parliament, Cheon Dae-yeop, head of the National Court Administration, clarified that “any resistance without a legitimate basis could be considered criminal, potentially constituting obstruction of official duties.”
While Yoon enjoys broad immunity from prosecution due to his position, this does not apply in cases of rebellion or treason. His defense team has questioned the validity of the new detention warrant, stating that the anti-corruption agency lacks the authority to pursue charges of rebellion against the president or initiate detainment orders against suspects.
Furthermore, they argue that the execution of warrants for Yoon at his residence is prohibited under a law that safeguards premises potentially linked to military secrets, requiring consent from the individual in charge—Yoon himself. Yoon’s lawyers have called upon the agency to either formally indict the president or file for a formal arrest warrant, which necessitates a court review. However, they emphasize that Yoon would only comply with an arrest order originating from the Seoul Central District Court, which is responsible for many critical cases. They further allege that the agency purposefully selected a different court with a potentially favorable judge, despite the residence falling under the domain of the Western District Court’s jurisdiction.
