The Constitutional Court of South Korea is set to rule on Feb. 27 regarding the dispute over the suspension of the nomination of Ma Eun-hyuk, a candidate for Constitutional Court justice, by President Yoon Suk-yeol’s acting president, Choi Sang-mok.
On Feb. 25, the Constitutional Court informed the National Assembly and Choi’s legal team that the ruling on the case would take place at 10 a.m. on Feb. 27. If the court decides that Choi’s suspension of Ma’s appointment was incorrect, Choi will be able to appoint Ma to the position.
Choi decided to withhold Ma’s nomination on Dec. 31, 2024, citing the failure of the ruling and opposition parties to reach an agreement. The National Assembly then filed a complaint, claiming that Choi’s actions infringed upon the Assembly’s right to select justices and its constitutional authority.
After the Constitutional Court accepted the case on Jan. 3, it held its first hearing on Jan. 22, which lasted just 1 hour and 20 minutes. The court then scheduled the ruling for Feb. 3 and rejected Choi’s request to summon witnesses regarding the failure of the ruling and opposition parties to reach an agreement on Ma’s nomination. However, some voices in the legal community criticized the proceedings as rushed
A late controversy arose after National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik filed the complaint on behalf of the Assembly without following the proper legislative process. Choi’s legal team argued that Woo’s unilateral filing was invalid and requested the case be dismissed. As a result, the Constitutional Court postponed its ruling by two hours on the scheduled date without providing further explanation.
On Feb. 10, the court held a second hearing and concluded additional arguments after about 50 minutes. Should the court rule that Choi’s suspension violated the National Assembly’s authority, he may still appoint Ma to the court.
However, even if Ma is appointed, it is unlikely he will participate in the ruling of President Yoon’s impeachment trial, which is expected to conclude on the same day. The appointment of a new justice would require restarting proceedings and additional procedures. A court official noted that the decision on whether the newly appointed justice will participate in ongoing cases lies with the bench.
