To understand the Korean political situation, one needs to be aware of certain characteristics of Korean politics:
From the moment Yoon was elected president, political polarization was high, with the DPK using its majority at the National Assembly to block all Yoon’s initiatives.
The current political turbulence was triggered by President Yoon’s controversial declaration of emergency martial law on December 3, 2024 (at 22:30), which was swiftly nullified by the National Assembly during an emergency session on 4 December (at 04:30), leading to the lifting of martial law just six hours after its imposition.
On December 14, 2024 the National Assembly voted (204 votes, including members of the PPP) to impeach President Yoon. Immediately, the President was suspended from the executive office.
Prime Minister Han Duck-Soo (a career civil servant, not a politician) became an Acting President[i] on December 14, 2024, but not for very long.
On December 27, 2024 the National Assembly impeached Acting President Han (essentially for political reasons, because he was opposed to the DPK). Then, Finance Minister Choi Sang-Mok became the new Acting President.
The impeachment motion is proposed to remove the President from office and restore the constitutional order. Impeachment proceedings against Yoon mainly focus on (1) declaring an emergency martial law on December 3, 2024, using the military and police to block and invade the National Assembly, and obstructing its constitutional duties; (2) unlawfully entering the National Election Commission; and (3) attempting to arrest lawmakers, politicians, and journalists. The National Assembly considers these acts as a violation of the Constitution, a threat to democratic principles, and an act of insurrection against the nation.
The President is immune from criminal prosecution while in office. However, there are exceptions in case of insurrection or treason. The Prosecutor’s Office and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (“CIO”) have launched investigations against President Yoon for his alleged act of insurrection and abuse of power. Exceptionally (in no small part due to political pressure), two concurrent procedures are addressing the same facts: a constitutional one before the Constitutional Court, and a criminal one led by the CIO.
The impeachment procedure is as described in the graph below:
[i] An acting president is vested with all constitutional and legal powers of the president, including the command of the armed forces, the authority to declare martial law, and the power to negotiate and ratify treaties, enabling comprehensive management of state affairs. Notably, no constitutional or legal provisions explicitly limit the scope of an acting president's duties. However, the prevailing view is that, unlike an elected president with democratic legitimacy, an acting president's role should be that of a “caretaker,” maintaining the status quo, ensuring the continuity of state functions, and preserving the existing state of affairs.
Article 38 of the Constitutional Court Act stipulates that a decision on a case should be rendered within 180 days of filing. However, the Court has interpreted this timeline as being directive rather than mandatory. Indeed, in numerous cases, the Court has exceeded the 180-day limit. That said, in presidential impeachment cases, the Court has prioritized swift resolution to minimize the vacuum in national governance, often delivering expedited decisions through intensive hearings.
Certain factors could contribute to the timing of the Court’s decision in President Yoon’s case:
During its proceedings, the Court is likely to focus on the following issues: (1) whether the declaration of martial law qualifies as an act of governance subject to judicial review; (2) whether the circumstances at the time met the criteria for its invocation, such as war, armed conflict, or a comparable national emergency; (3) whether special measures could be taken; regarding the powers of the National Assembly or its members under the martial law; and (4) whether the special measures taken against the National Election Commission under the declaration of martial law violated the Constitution.
The standard used by the Court will be whether the president violated the Constitution or other laws in a manner that significantly undermines the rule of law or democratic principles. The Court also applies the principle of proportionality by assessing whether the actions of the president were appropriate and necessary in relation to their objectives, ensuring that any limitations on individual rights are not excessive.
If the Constitutional Court upholds the impeachment (a majority of six out of the nine justices is required), the acting President will continue to serve until presidential elections are held and the newly elected President's term begins. Conversely, if the impeachment is not upheld, President Yoon will be reinstated, and the acting President’s role will end immediately.
The current turmoil (which has been televised worldwide) stems from the criminal procedure launched by the CIO against President Yoon.
The CIO has been leading a criminal investigation into charges of “abuse of power” and “insurrection” over Yoon’s declaration of martial law. By law, the CIO can investigate and prosecute corruption offenses involving high-ranking officials, including judges, prosecutors, and senior police officers. However, for other senior officials, including the President, the CIO only has investigative power, not the authority to prosecute. Hence the controversy among legal experts: can the CIO, which was essentially created to investigate corruption of senior officials, expand its jurisdiction to include insurrection?
By law, the CIO does not have investigative jurisdiction over the crime of “insurrection.” Only the police have the authority to investigate rebellion or insurrection directly. However, the CIO argues it can investigate “insurrection” as a crime related to that of “abuse of power,” a precedent cited by the Prosecutor’s Office before transferring the case to the CIO. Yoon is challenging this argument, asserting that “abuse of power” is not an exception to presidential immunity and that tying “insurrection” to “abuse of power” is a legal overreach. As one of his lawyers said, “Attempting to connect insurrection, a serious offense punishable by the death penalty, with abuse of power, which carries a maximum five-year sentence, stretches legal reasoning.”
CIO investigators summoned Yoon three times in December 2024 for questioning, but each time Yoon refused to comply. In response, the CIO obtained detention and search warrants from the Seoul Western District Court at the end of 2024. They failed the first time, but on January 15, 2025 the CIO arrested Yoon shortly after a standoff with the Presidential Security Service (“PSS”). The PSS is, like the CIO, a governmental agency. The physical standoff between officials of two governmental agencies created an awkward situation.
Yoon was finally arrested on January 15, 2025 at the CIO’s request. In the early hours of Sunday January 19, 2025, the Seoul Western District Court approved a formal arrest warrant allowing the investigators to keep Yoon in custody until his trial. The CIO, which has the power to investigate but not to indict, transferred the case to the Prosecutor’s Office. On Sunday, January 26, the Prosecutor’s Office formally indicted President Yoon on charges of insurrection.
This K-drama is not over…
