In its decision to remove President Yoon Suk-yeol from office, South Korea’s Constitutional Court also pointed to what it described as excessive impeachment drives and legislative overreach by the Democratic Party, which holds the majority in the National Assembly. The court said Yoon’s view—that the legislature’s use of its powers had paralyzed the administration—“must be respected.”
The justices noted that an “unusually large number of impeachment motions” had been filed, and for the first time in the country’s constitutional history, the opposition had unilaterally passed budget cuts without any increases through the National Assembly’s Special Committee on Budget and Accounts. The court also said that many of the Yoon administration’s core policies had been blocked by the Democratic Party, rendering them impossible to implement.
Against this backdrop, the court acknowledged that Yoon was under immense pressure to respond to what he perceived as a deepening crisis in governance. However, it emphasized that such political challenges must be addressed within the bounds of democratic principles. It concluded that Yoon had overstepped those boundaries by unlawfully declaring martial law and misusing his emergency powers.
Over Yoon’s two years and 11 months in office, the Democratic Party submitted 30 impeachment motions targeting figures in the administration. Of those, 13 were unilaterally passed and sent to the Constitutional Court.
During Yoon’s suspension, the party went further—impeaching the acting president and even submitting a motion against the deputy acting president. Among the 10 motions the court ruled on, nine were dismissed, with only the case against Yoon upheld.
The court also pointed out that all 41 bills vetoed by Yoon had been passed solely by the Democratic Party. It emphasized that the National Assembly should have respected minority voices and made greater efforts to engage with the administration through dialogue, restraint, and compromise. At the same time, it noted that the president, too, should have approached the legislature as a partner in governance.
While the court ruled that Yoon’s declaration of martial law constituted a serious violation of the law, it also recognized the Democratic Party’s abuses and overreach as threats to democratic order.
Shortly after the ruling, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung acknowledged that both he and the broader political community needed to reflect deeply and take full responsibility. However, many of the party’s undemocratic actions were widely seen as driven by Lee’s personal efforts to shield himself from legal accountability. Now that Yoon is no longer in office, it is Lee who may have the most to reflect on.
Even in the wake of the court’s decision, some in the Democratic Party appeared to celebrate as if they had seized power. There was even talk of pursuing retaliatory impeachment motions against Acting President Han Duck-soo and Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok—remarks that drew criticism as politically motivated and deeply inappropriate.
Until a new administration is in place, Han’s caretaker government must contend with mounting external pressures, including tariff threats from the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and broader national security concerns. To navigate this period, the Democratic Party will need to act with a heightened sense of responsibility and play its part in governance. That begins not with the posture of a victorious conqueror, but with a sober recognition of its role in bringing about a moment of national crisis.
Whether the Democratic Party now chooses to prioritize the national interest or to pursue its own political ambitions is something the public will be watching closely, and judging with increasing clarity.
