Impotence sentence sealing the fate of South Korea's president

Seoul – South Korea has seen three presidents facing impeachment trials, including incumbent President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was impeached by impeachment in a December 14 National Assembly vote.

So far, between two other former presidents of the impeachment each, Roh Moo-Hyun and Park Geun-Hye, the Constitutional Court has only upheld Park's impeachment motion.

The difference between the two court decisions is whether the president has an active intention to violate the constitutional order. The 2004 Constitutional Court did not recognize that ROH's constitutional violations were a matter of positive intentions. However, in Parker's case, the court ruled that she did have an active intention to violate the Constitution in 2017. The court's assessment also differs in the severity of the constitutional violations of the first two presidents.

Here are the results of the court's investigation, which led to different verdicts by the two former presidents.

The 2004 judgment acknowledged the constitutional violation of the liberal president for being impeached for allegations of violating the Public Official Election Act, teaching his close aides that failed to resolve the economic downturn.

Among these allegations, ROH’s election law violation is at the center of the dispute. Parliament accused him of failing to comply with the duties of public officials and, as he told reporters at a February 2004 press conference, he wanted people to “overwhelmingly support (his party)” and he “wanted to do anything legitimate as president to help his party win more votes.”

However, these remarks do not suggest that ROH is actively in violation of the Constitution by trying to use his power to interfere with government authority through state institutions, but according to the ruling proclaiming the overthrow of his improper each, his violations were committed passively and incidentally in the form of answers to journalists’ questions.

“Ultimately, given the overall impact of the president’s law against the constitutional order, the (court) cannot recognize that the president () has a positive intention to pass a law against the constitutional order,” the May 2004 ruling said.

The judgment also declared that ROH’s violations “don’t require a court decision to withdraw ROH from the presidential term to uphold the Constitution and restore constitutional orders.”

The president's violation of the law must “intention” to constitute the reason for impeachment, which means the president “can't impeach each because of errors or policy failures”, Cha Jin-A, a law professor who specializes in constitutional law at the Korean university, told the Korea Herald.

The judgment did not disclose how many court judges were in favor of ROH's impeachment or objected on the bench of nine members.

Unlike the ROH case, the Constitutional Court ruled that the park did commit a “serious violation of the law” and that she was responsible for serving the public interest, maintaining and abiding by the Constitution.

The judgment on the former conservative president involved a total corruption scandal involving her close confidant, without any formal posts – stressing that protection and compliance with the Constitution exceeds the potential damage of any potential interest in the national interest caused by the removal of office as president-elect. After that, Choi changed its name to Choi Seo-Won.

The verdict shows that Parker also faces a “serious violation” of impeachment because she imposed abuse of power to favor Choi and violated the property rights of South Korean business groups by forcing them to offer Joey a special favor.

Parker and her office concealed the fact that she had leaked confidential information to people without any formal positions and condemned those who suspected Parker had been doing this, an act of “betraying people's trust.”

In addition, the court ruled that the park failed to maintain and comply with the constitution because Parker refused to cooperate with the prosecutors and did not appear to question or approve the search operation in Cheong Wa Dae because Parker refused to cooperate with the prosecutor, which was then the official presidential office and the official presidential office and residence.

One debate in the improper trial is whether the president “betrays the trust of the people by violating the principles of liberal democracy and the rule of law,” said Kwon Hyung-dun, who also specializes in the constitution.

Park's 2017 impeachment verdict was a unanimous 8-0 ruling, as one seat on the bench of nine members remains open.

Whether the verdicts on the past two presidents impeachment indicate that his post will be deleted in the upcoming verdict on his case.

All eyes were focused on whether the court that ended the impeachment trial hearing on February 25 after 11 meetings would rule that any part of Yoon's December 3 martial law declaration was done with “positive intentions” and was a “serious” constitutional violation.

The National Assembly voted to pass the National Assembly on December 14 to argue that the Yuan announced that martial arts had banned all political activities, including the General Assembly itself, although South Korea was not in war or in a national emergency; Yoon declared martial law through a flawed cabinet meeting; Yoon failed to inform the parliament of martial law without delay. Yin ordered the arrest of his political opponents, paralyzing the parliament.

Unlike Parker's case, the impeachment trial hearing revealed the contradiction between the suspended President of the E.P. and the whistleblower's statement on whether the warrant was actually issued. However, one expert noted that the trial concluded without further validating these conflicting claims.

“The court should take other steps, such as holding further hearings, to avoid falling into controversy over procedural fairness,” Cha said. “Whatever the Constitutional Court decides now, whether it is impulse or being fired, is hard to accept now.”

Procedural fairness refers to the principle of ensuring that legal and administrative procedures are carried out in a fair, transparent and impartial manner.

However, according to Quaoen, the O's violation should be considered serious due to its martial law, whether Yoon ordered the arrest of politicians.

“The history of South Korea shows that the implementation of martial arts is often used as a dictatorial means through military coups,” Kwaen said. “The importance of South Korea's constitution is very important to democratic control when designing systems for institutional declaring national emergencies.”

He added that the court's failure to rule Yoon's martial law was a serious violation, which would “show that the president's martial law declaration can be tolerated regularly”.