April 2, 2025
Seoul – South Korea's Constitutional Court announced Tuesday that it will make a judgment on the impeachment case of the suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol at 11 a.m. Friday, ending the deliberations, which split the country and sparked anxiety about the constitutionality of the December 3 martial law announcement.
Eight-person courts have been deliberating for five weeks since the Constitutional Court began hearing the case in 1988, and the longest review of the president's improvisation trial has been held at 11 rounds of hearings on February 25.
If the court insists on the dollar's impeachment on Friday, he will be immediately removed from office, leading to an early presidential election that must be held within 60 days or before June 3.
If the court votes to decide or dismiss the rebound each, Yoon will be restored and complete its remaining term, which is scheduled to end May 10, 2027.
The ruling can take legal effect from the moment the judge makes the court decision.
In the first two presidential improvisation rulings, the Chief Justice spent 20 minutes reading the verdict and announced about 30 seconds of decision before ending the reading. With that in mind, Yoon's fate may be revealed around 11:30 a.m. Friday.
The court said they will allow live broadcasts and public attendance during the ruling, but everyone’s eyes are focused on how the court will announce its ruling and whether the court will read its details aloud on Friday.
In 2004, the court read only the majority opinion section of the impeachment judgment of former President Roh Moo-Hyun, leaving the minority opinion unreleased. In 2017, the court unanimous voted to pass the impeachment of former Park Geun-hye, when the operation's chief justice Lee Jung-Mi read aloud at the end of the verdict: “We hereby dismiss the interviewee, President Park Geun-hye fired from his post.”
The National Assembly passed the impeachment motion on December 14, and the court's judgment will take place 111 days.
During the trial, the National Assembly argued that Yoon declared martial law prohibiting all political activities, although South Korea did not follow the constitutional requirements and did not take place in war or in a national emergency. It also argued that the Yuan declaration violated the rules of procedure, citing “flawed” cabinet meetings, and Yoon failed to inform Parliament of his martial law without delay.
In addition, the parliament also accused the Memorandum of ordering the deployment of martial law troops and police to block and attack the National Assembly in order to paralyze the legislature, including the arrest of a list of politicians and critics.
The court spent 35 days on the deliberations – fueling anxiety in the political and social fields compared to the 11 and 14 days of deliberations on Roh and Park. The prolonged deliberations on whether the implementation of Yoon is uncertainty over the opposition-led National Assembly’s self-defense or self-defense behavior, further escalating political unrest.
The South Korean Constitutional Court, a difficult legacy of the pro-democracy movement, is now facing one of the most important moments in its 37-year history against Yoon. Established after the uprising in 1987 ended decades of military domination, the court has issued landmark rulings over the years – from legalizing abortions to the 1972 ruling that was unconstitutional by then Park Chung-Hee, these statutes constitute a severely shaped modern Korean law and society.
Considering that the previous ruling on the president’s impeachment was released within two weeks of the last hearing, some critics interpreted the court’s quiet five weeks as “abdicating its responsibility.”
With daily protests carrying out severely protected places outside and near the court, a survey conducted by South Korean studies and a survey conducted on March 24-26 showed that 40% of citizens now do not trust the Constitutional Court, a shock from the traditional high trust traditionally shown to the institution.
The poll conducted a survey of 1,001 men and women aged 18 and older nationwide through telephone interviews. The error margin is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, with a confidence level of 95%, and a response rate of 32%.
Some in the political circles even proposed to completely remove the constitutional court's authorization for the improvisation trial, and these people believed that the final decision of the National Assembly on the improvisation motion should be made through a national referendum.
Currently, Austria, Romania and Slovakia have decided to improvise leaders through public referendum.
