NewKerala.com

Key Points

The South Korean Constitutional Court has validated the National Assembly's impeachment motion against acting President Han Duck-soo in a significant political development. The court's 6-2 ruling upheld the impeachment process, rejecting claims by People Power Party lawmakers that the quorum was improperly applied. This decision comes weeks after Han was reinstated to office and follows a 192-0 vote to impeach him. The ruling sets a crucial precedent in South Korean constitutional procedures and political accountability.

Key Points: Han Duck-soo Impeachment Motion Upheld by South Korean Court

  • Constitutional Court dismisses People Power Party's legal challenge
  • Impeachment vote passed 192-0 with PPP boycott
  • Han refused to appoint additional court justices
  • Yoon Suk Yeol to leave presidential residence
3 min read

South Korean Court rules quorum in impeachment motion of acting President Han valid

South Korean Constitutional Court validates National Assembly's impeachment motion against acting President Han Duck-soo in landmark 6-2 ruling

"The speaker's decision did not violate the Constitution or other laws - Constitutional Court Ruling"

Seoul, April 10

The South Korean Constitutional Court on Thursday upheld the validity of the National Assembly's impeachment motion against acting President Han Duck-soo, ruling that the use of a quorum standard applicable to Cabinet ministers, rather than the president, did not violate the Constitution.

In a 6-2 decision, the court dismissed a competence dispute filed by 108 lawmakers from the People Power Party (PPP) against National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik. The ruling came just weeks after the same court reinstated Han to office.

The parliament voted 192-0 to impeach Han, who was serving as both prime minister and acting president following the suspension of then President Yoon Suk Yeol from office over the short-lived imposition of martial law on December 3, Yonhap news agency reported.

The motion was introduced after Han refused to appoint additional justices to the Constitutional Court to deliberate Yoon's impeachment trial.

PPP lawmakers boycotted the vote in protest, arguing that the speaker wrongly applied a quorum of a simple majority -- typically used for Cabinet ministers -- instead of the two-thirds majority of 200 votes required for presidential impeachments.

In response, the PPP lawmakers filed the suit, claiming that their rights to deliberate and vote were infringed upon.

However, the court dismissed their claim, ruling that the speaker's decision did not violate the Constitution or other laws. It also noted that the PPP lawmakers had voluntarily opted out of the vote and therefore they were not in a position to claim their rights were violated.

Meanwhile, Yoon Suk Yeol is set to leave the presidential residence on Friday to return to his private residence in southern Seoul, officials said Thursday, following his removal from office last week.

"Yoon plans to leave the official residence at 5 pm Friday move to his private residence," a senior presidential official said in a press notice.

The Presidential Security Service (PSS) has reportedly completed organising a private residence security team of about 40 people for Yoon. Under the current law, Yoon can receive protection from the PSS for up to 10 years.

Yoon's private residence is located at the Acrovista apartment complex in Seocho-dong, southern Seoul, and he previously stayed there for six months even after his presidential inauguration in May 2022.

Yoon and his wife, Kim Keon Hee, are reportedly considering moving to another private residence in the capital area later because they own as many as 11 pet dogs and cats and the presence of security guards may cause some inconveniences for neighbours.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

J
James K.
This seems like a really messy political situation. The court's reasoning makes sense though - if you boycott the vote, you can't really complain about the outcome. 🤷‍♂️
S
Sarah L.
Interesting how the same court reinstated Han just weeks ago and now ruled on this. The legal technicalities here are fascinating - shows how important constitutional details can be in governance.
M
Michael T.
While I understand the court's decision, I'm concerned about the precedent this sets. Shouldn't impeachment standards be consistent regardless of who's being impeached? This feels like legal loophole territory.
A
Amy P.
Can we talk about how Yoon has 11 pets?! That's a whole zoo! 🐕🐈 But seriously, this whole situation shows how fragile democratic processes can be when political tensions run high.
D
David H.
The 192-0 vote tells you everything you need to know. When even your own party won't show up to defend you, maybe it's time to reflect on your leadership.
E
Elena R.
I appreciate the detailed reporting here. So many articles just give the surface level facts, but this explains the constitutional nuances that are actually driving these decisions.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50