South Korea is poised for a crucial decision as the Constitutional Court is set to determine the fate of the impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol on Friday. This ruling could either sustain or overturn his impeachment, a resolution that is likely to intensify ongoing domestic political tensions.
The court has been engaged in deliberations concerning Yoon’s political future after the December impeachment by the National Assembly, which is dominated by liberal opposition figures. This action followed his short-lived imposition of martial law, which spurred a significant political controversy. Both supporters and detractors of Yoon have demonstrated across the nation. To ensure peace throughout this period, law enforcement announced the mobilization of all available resources to prevent any acts of violence or unrest before and after the court’s verdict.
The court released a brief message on Tuesday, announcing its decision would be made public at 11 a.m. on Friday. The proceedings will be available for live broadcast via television. A ruling to remove Yoon from office would necessitate a minimum of six out of the eight justices to support his impeachment. Should the court decide against Yoon, a presidential election must be conducted within two months. Conversely, if the impeachment is overturned, Yoon would promptly resume his presidential duties.
Jo Seung-lae, representing the liberal opposition Democratic Party that led Yoon’s impeachment, urged the court to uphold the constitutional integrity by supporting Yoon’s dismissal. Meanwhile, Kwon Youngse from Yoon’s People Power Party called for a verdict that is neutral and considers the national interest.
Earlier predictions suggested the court’s decision would be released by mid-March, reflecting the timeline of previous presidential impeachment rulings. However, reasons for the extended deliberation surrounding Yoon’s case remain undisclosed, fuelling speculation about the implications for his political future.
Central to the issue is Yoon’s actions on December 3, when he deployed military forces to the National Assembly during the enactment of martial law. Although Yoon defended his actions as an effort to maintain order, certain military officials reported that Yoon intended to obstruct a legislative vote and detain his adversaries.
Yoon argues he intended martial law to be temporary, primarily to demonstrate what he saw as the obstructive nature of the Democratic Party, which he blamed for blocking his initiatives, impeaching top officials, and cutting his budget proposals. During his martial law announcement, he labelled the assembly a “den of criminals” and “anti-state forces.” While a president can declare martial law in wartime or emergencies, according to law, the party and its supporters argue that no such situation existed.
The impeachment motion accused Yoon of disrupting National Assembly functions, attempting to detain lawmakers, and jeopardizing peace, contrary to constitutional provisions. Yoon, however, contests these accusations, stating he had no plans to disrupt assembly operations or detain anyone. Although his martial law declaration lasted merely six hours before being annulled by legislative action, images of soldiers arriving at the assembly awakened memories of past military dictatorships in South Korea, where martial law was last invoked in 1980.
Surveys previously indicated public support for Yoon’s impeachment, yet recent times have witnessed increased pro-Yoon demonstrations, with conservatives criticizing the Democratic Party’s aggressive stance against Yoon’s administration.
Alongside the court’s impending decision, Yoon faces legal challenges with criminal rebellion charges brought against him. He was detained in January but was released and allowed to prepare for his trial without incarceration in early March by a district court ruling. Additionally, ten senior officials from the military and police face charges in relation to the events surrounding the martial law enactment.