The South Korean Constitutional Court on Mar. 24 rejected an impeachment motion against Han Duck-soo, the acting president and prime minister.
The decision came 87 days after the main opposition Democratic Party submitted the motion late last year, accusing Han of colluding in an insurrection and obstructing the appointment of a Constitutional Court justice. Han immediately returned to office following the ruling.
A majority of the justices found that four of the accusations—colluding in an insurrection, delaying the appointment of a special prosecutor, refusing to sign a bill for a special probe into first lady Kim Keon-hee, and jointly running the administration with former ruling party leader Han Dong-hoon—could not be considered illegal. They said Han did violate the Constitution and related laws by failing to appoint a Constitutional Court justice, but added that this wasn’t serious enough to justify removing him from office.
With this decision, the court has now dismissed all nine impeachment motions—brought by the Democratic Party against prime ministers, ministers, and prosecutors—that have proceeded to a ruling. The repeated outcomes have reinforced criticisms that the impeachments were politically driven and lacked legal merit.
The move to impeach Han, critics say, came amid extreme political turbulence following the suspension of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s duties. At the same time, S. Korea was grappling with mounting economic and security pressures driven by the “America First” policies of the newly launched U.S. administration.
Against this backdrop, critics argue, the Democratic Party’s actions deepened political instability and intensified national division. They allege the party was acting out of haste to trigger a snap presidential election before party leader Lee Jae-myung receives a final ruling in his election law violation case. Many have described the situation as a breakdown in governance.
Nevertheless, Lee did not apologize or back down. Instead, he said “the public cannot accept” the decision. He urged Han and the court to “immediately appoint Ma Eun-hyuk as a Constitutional Court justice and issue a ruling on President Yoon’s impeachment.” He also said his party would move forward with the impeachment of Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok.
However, Choi has overseen a wide range of state affairs, including economic and security policies, as well as disaster response efforts such as wildfire management. The allegations against him—delaying a justice appointment and conspiring in an insurrection—mirror those cited in Han’s case and have already been rejected by the court. Now that Han has been reinstated, critics say there is no longer any practical justification for pursuing Choi’s impeachment.
As the government’s top economic policymaker, Choi plays a central role in steering S. Korea’s economy. Observers argue the Democratic Party should halt its aggressive impeachment campaign and immediately withdraw the motion against him.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court interpreted the threshold for passing an impeachment motion against an acting president to be 151 seats—the majority required for Cabinet members—not 200, the supermajority needed to impeach a sitting president. The justices explained that an acting president does not assume a new constitutional status but merely performs functions already designated by the Constitution.
Even so, some have voiced concern over the implications. An acting president essentially fulfills the role of the nation’s top office, and if a simple majority in the National Assembly can impeach that position, the ruling party may abuse the process for political gain—especially during times of crisis. Reflecting this concern, two of the justices expressed the view that the threshold should be 200 seats.
The Democratic Party has previously warned that it would continue impeaching Cabinet members in line to assume acting presidential duties. Unless this cycle of repeated impeachments and political brinkmanship is broken, observers say, stability in government will remain elusive. Many are now calling for further constitutional discussion on how to set a clear and appropriate threshold for impeaching acting presidents.
