South Korea has been grappling with political and legal turmoil since impeached President Yoon Suk-yeol’s martial law declaration last month. The investigation into Yoon and his impeachment trial by the Constitutional Court has exposed cracks in the judicial system.
Controversies surrounding the legitimacy of the investigation led by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and the dispute over whether the arrest warrant issued by the court was legislative overreach have fueled public distrust. President Yoon has refused to comply with summonses on three occasions and rejected the execution of an arrest warrant issued on Jan 3.
The Democratic Party of Korea recently announced its decision to exclude insurrection charges from Yoon’s impeachment motion, sparking a heated political row between the ruling and opposition parties. While the Constitutional Court appears to be speeding up Yoon’s impeachment proceedings, frustrations have grown over delays in Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung’s trial for election law violations, raising concerns that “the judicial system is biased and swayed by political interests.”
Legal and political circles are increasingly voicing concerns that “with the prospect of an early presidential election, the rule of law is collapsing under political logic, and the president, National Assembly, and the judiciary are undermining their authority.”
President Yoon’s lawyers announced on Jan. 5 that they would file charges against over 150 individuals, including CIO Chief Oh Dong-woon, Acting Defense Minister Kim Seon-ho, and Acting National Police Chief Lee Ho-young. They are accused of carrying out an arrest warrant against Yoon and breaching security protocols by refusing to cooperate with the presidential security office. President Yoon has reportedly remarked that “the judiciary is collapsing” in response to the CIO’s investigation. However, even within the ruling party, many point out that Yoon should “face the investigation with dignity if he believes martial law is legitimate.”
Legal and political experts claim that disputes over the investigation’s jurisdiction and the arrest warrant have provided Yoon with an opportunity to push back. The CIO does not have the authority to investigate insurrection charges, according to the CIO Act. But it can probe related offenses discovered during investigations into high-ranking officials. The CIO argues it can investigate insurrection as a crime linked to abuse of power, which falls under its direct investigative authority.
Only the police have the authority to investigate insurrection. To address the controversy over jurisdiction, the CIO formed a joint investigation team with the police and prosecutors. However, the arrest warrant for Yoon was reportedly requested and issued independently by the CIO through the court, bypassing standard police procedures. Legal experts argue that the CIO, having faced criticism about its investigative capacity and effectiveness, appears to be overstepping its authority. Yoon’s supporters claim the investigation is illegal, as sitting presidents can only be prosecuted for insurrection and treason.
The controversy deepened when Seoul West District Court Judge Lee Soon-hyung issued Yoon’s arrest warrant, citing an exception to Articles 110-111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which prohibits searches and seizures of military or official secrets without the consent of the responsible official. Critics point out that Judge Lee engaged in “legislating from the bench” by overriding established legal safeguards.
The National Assembly’s impeachment investigation committee, dominated by the main opposition Democratic Party, said it intended to withdraw insurrection charges from the grounds for impeaching President Yoon at a Constitutional Court preparatory hearing on Jan 3. This move is widely interpreted as an attempt to expedite impeachment proceedings to pave the way for an early presidential election. This strategy would allow Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung to enter the race unburdened by his many judicial risks. The ruling People Power Party argues that the opposition seeks to secure an impeachment ruling before potential judicial setbacks, such as Lee’s election law violation trial ruling, can derail their plans for an early presidential election.
