South Korea’s main opposition Democratic Party renewed its call for the dismissal of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, just one day after the Constitutional Court rejected an impeachment motion against him.
The party urged Han to immediately appoint Ma Eun-hyuk as a Constitutional Court justice and warned that failure to do so could lead to another impeachment attempt.
The party also vowed to push ahead with impeachment proceedings against Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok, who, like Han, did not appoint Ma while serving as acting president.
A senior Democratic Party official even raised suspicions that behind-the-scenes pressure may have influenced the court’s delay in ruling on the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk-yeol.
Speaking during a meeting at the Democratic Party’s makeshift headquarters in central Seoul on Mar. 25, Floor Leader Park Chan-dae said, “If Prime Minister Han refuses to appoint Ma as a justice, that constitutes grounds for dismissal.”
Park added, “The Constitutional Court ruled through a jurisdiction dispute that Choi’s refusal to appoint Ma was unconstitutional, and it has been 26 days since that ruling. The fact that Han wasn’t dismissed doesn’t mean the illegal act has disappeared.”
Although the Constitutional Court dismissed Han’s impeachment the previous day, Park pressed the issue, saying that failure to appoint Ma could still lead to another impeachment motion.
On Dec. 26 of last year, Han, then acting president, deferred appointing three candidates—Cho Han-chang, Chung Kye-sun and Ma Eun-hyuk—who were elected by the National Assembly, saying he would do so “immediately if the ruling and opposition parties reached an agreement.” However, the next day, the Democratic Party submitted an impeachment motion against him.
Then, after 87 days, on Mar. 24, the Constitutional Court ruled by majority opinion that there were “no grounds for dismissal.” Still, the Democratic Party continued to cite Han’s refusal to appoint Ma as a reason for the impeachment motion against Choi and hinted at further action against Han, prompting criticism that the party was politically exploiting the impeachment process.
For this ruling, Democratic Party chief spokesperson Cho Seung-rae said Sunday that the court acknowledged the appointment delay as clearly “unconstitutional and illegal” but didn’t consider the duration serious enough to amount to a breach of public trust.
He argued that while the court didn’t see Han’s actions as grounds for dismissal in December—when the National Assembly passed the appointment of the three candidates and Han was impeached the next day—more time has now passed, which would make continued refusal to appoint Ma a legitimate reason for dismissal.
However, Ji Seong-woo, a law professor at Sungkyunkwan University, said that the court had already concluded that Han’s delay in the appointment wasn’t serious enough to justify impeachment. “There’s a high chance the court would reach the same decision even if the Democratic Party brings another impeachment motion,” he said.
Cha Jin-a, a law professor at Korea University, noted that neither Han nor Choi had flatly refused to appoint Ma. “They both said they would make the appointments if the ruling and opposition parties reached an agreement,” she said. “It’s hard to view that as a ‘grave violation of the Constitution or the law’ that would warrant dismissal.”
Meanwhile, senior Democratic Party official Kim Min-seok voiced concern on Facebook the previous day, suggesting that behind-the-scenes pressure might be influencing the Constitutional Court, which he accused of breaking precedent by delaying its ruling.
“Everyone expected a decision on President Yoon’s impeachment by no later than March 14, based on the court’s announced schedule,” he wrote. “Now we all feel like fools.”
Kim went on to say, “Unless this is part of a scheme by anti-democratic forces to remove Lee Jae-myung, I can’t think of any other explanation.” He did not provide evidence to support his claim.
