The impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk-yeol was rejected due to a lack of participation from lawmakers in the ruling People Power Party (PPP), but the situation surrounding his position is growing increasingly dire. On Dec. 8, the head of the special prosecution unit investigating the Dec. 3 martial law declared that President Yoon has been formally listed as a suspect on insurrection charges. The fact that prosecutors publicly named a sitting president as a suspect underscores the gravity of the situation. The lead prosecutor described the martial law declaration as “a public official abusing their authority to incite a rebellion aimed at disrupting constitutional order.”

Adding to the tension, police have ruled out a joint investigation with prosecutors. This stance has been interpreted as confidence in their ability to independently prove the charges. Meanwhile, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) has requested that the case be transferred to their jurisdiction, leading to competing investigative efforts against a president who, under the Constitution, cannot be criminally prosecuted for non-treasonous acts while in office.

Park Se-hyun, head of the special investigation unit handling the Dec. 3 martial law case under the Prosecution Service, speaks during a briefing at the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office in Seoul on Dec. 8, 2024./News1

In a public address before the impeachment vote, President Yoon stated that he would leave plans for political stability, including his tenure, to the PPP. However, he stopped short of announcing a clear intention to step down early. Delegating such a critical matter to the ruling party is far from a responsible approach, raising concerns that the president has yet to fully grasp the seriousness and urgency of his situation.

PPP leader Han Dong-hoon and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo have called for Yoon’s orderly resignation but failed to present concrete plans. Controversy is mounting over how the prime minister and party leader could legally assume governance under a so-called “responsible prime minister system” while Yoon remains in office. The PPP is already paralyzed by internal conflict, with discord over impeachment intensifying divisions. While Han emphasized the necessity of suspending the president’s duties, the party maintained its stance against impeachment. Opting to abstain from the vote instead of actively opposing the motion reflects a lack of confidence in their own reasoning.

In 2016, despite political turbulence, South Korea avoided significant economic or diplomatic damage during President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment because of the predictability of the process. Parliament’s impeachment vote, the Constitutional Court’s ruling, and the subsequent election provided a clear timeline. In contrast, the current situation is marked by complete uncertainty, with no way to predict what may unfold tomorrow or next week.

If the ruling party hopes to avoid the extreme divisions that impeachment could bring, it must urgently present a concrete plan and timeline for an orderly transition to the public. Neither the president nor the PPP has much time left. The opposition Democratic Party (DPK) must also adopt a responsible stance, working together to navigate the crisis with wisdom.