The Constitutional Court of South Korea removed President Yoon Suk-yeol from office on April 4 (Korea time).
Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae announced the impeachment ruling at approximately 11:22 AM, stating, “Yoon Suk-yeol is removed from the presidency.” With this pronouncement, the removal took immediate effect, and Yoon lost his position as president.
The court stated, “The respondent (President Yoon) mobilized military and police forces to undermine constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly and violated the fundamental rights of the people, thereby betraying the duty to uphold the Constitution.” It added, “This constitutes a grave violation of the law that cannot be tolerated from the perspective of constitutional protection, as it betrayed the trust of the people.”
The court further emphasized, “By declaring martial law in violation of the Constitution and laws, the respondent revived the history of abusing national emergency powers, shocking the nation and causing chaos across social, economic, political, and diplomatic spheres.” It concluded, “The benefit of upholding the Constitution through the respondent’s removal overwhelmingly outweighs the national losses incurred by such an action.”
The Constitutional Court upheld all five grounds for impeachment raised by the National Assembly, determining that Yoon’s actions constituted serious constitutional and legal violations warranting removal from office.
This ruling comes 122 days after Yoon declared emergency martial law on December 3 of the previous year and 111 days after the impeachment motion was filed with the court on December 14.
At 11:00 AM, the Constitutional Court held the impeachment ruling session in its main courtroom and unanimously upheld the National Assembly’s impeachment motion, with all justices in agreement.
No justices issued dissenting opinions, though some provided supplementary opinions to elaborate on specific issues while agreeing with the conclusion.
The court found that there was no national emergency on December 3 of the previous year, yet Yoon illegally declared martial law in violation of constitutional requirements.
Regarding the so-called “line-item impeachment” and budget cuts, the court noted, “Even if the National Assembly’s exercise of authority was unlawful or unjust, it could have been addressed through ordinary means of power, such as the Constitutional Court’s impeachment trial or the respondent’s veto request, and thus does not justify the exercise of national emergency powers.”
On Yoon’s claim that the martial law was intended as a “warning” or “appeal,” the court stated, “There is no such thing as a warning or appeal-based martial law. The essence of emergency martial law is to overcome a grave crisis through military force, so its declaration cannot merely serve as a warning.”
The court also dismissed the “election fraud” claims cited as a pretext for martial law, stating, “Such allegations alone do not indicate that a grave crisis had realistically occurred, and they cannot justify the declaration of martial law.”
The court further determined that Yoon violated procedural requirements, as no substantive deliberation took place during the cabinet meeting prior to the martial law declaration, and the National Assembly was not notified as mandated.
Regarding Proclamation No. 1 issued by the martial law command, the court ruled that it “violated constitutional provisions granting the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law, as well as provisions on the party system, representative democracy, and the separation of powers, by prohibiting the activities of the National Assembly, local councils, and political parties.”
The allegation that Yoon attempted to obstruct the National Assembly’s resolution to lift martial law by ordering the removal of lawmakers gathered at the National Assembly was also acknowledged as fact. The court stated, “The respondent instructed the commander of the Army Special Warfare Command and others to ‘break down the door and drag out those inside, as it seems the quorum for a vote has not been met.’”
The court also confirmed as fact that attempts were made to track the locations of key politicians and legal figures during the martial law declaration.
It noted, “The Minister of Defense instructed the commander of the Military Counterintelligence Command to identify the locations of 14 individuals, including the Speaker of the National Assembly and party leaders, for potential arrests if necessary. The respondent called the First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service to support the Military Counterintelligence Command, and the commander requested the NIS deputy director to track the locations of these individuals.”
Additionally, “The targets included a recently retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and former Supreme Court justices, which pressured active judges by implying they could be subject to arrest by the executive branch at any time, thereby infringing on judicial independence.”
While the direct orders were attributed to former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, the court specified in its ruling, “The respondent was involved in instructions to track the locations of key politicians for potential arrests to restrict their activities,” adding, “It is difficult to conclude that Kim Yong-hyun’s orders were made independently of the respondent’s intent.”
The testimonies of Hong Jang-won, former First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service, and Kwak Jong-geun, former commander of the Army Special Warfare Command, which Yoon’s side heavily challenged for credibility during the impeachment trial, appear to have been accepted as factual.
The allegation that Yoon violated the Constitution by ordering an unjust search and seizure of the National Election Commission was also upheld. Yoon had claimed it was a lawful martial law operation and necessary to inspect the election system, but the court found that the commission was functioning normally at the time, making the martial law command’s actions unjustifiable.
Regarding these constitutional and legal violations, the court concluded, “The respondent betrayed the duty to uphold the Constitution and gravely violated the trust of the South Korean people, the sovereigns of this democratic republic, causing incalculable harm to democracy.”
The court rejected all procedural objections raised by Yoon’s side.
On the so-called “insurrection charge withdrawal” controversy, the court ruled that it did not constitute a change in the grounds for impeachment and that the president’s martial law declaration is subject to judicial review.
The court also dismissed Yoon’s claims that the impeachment motion was invalid due to bypassing the National Assembly’s Judiciary Committee investigation or violating the principle of double jeopardy.
Justices Kim Bok-hyung and Cho Han-chang provided supplementary opinions suggesting that stricter application of the hearsay rule (requiring firsthand testimony to be submitted directly in court) is needed in future impeachment trials, while Justices Lee Mi-seon and Kim Hyung-doo suggested that the hearsay rule could be relaxed.
Justice Jung Hyung-sik offered a supplementary opinion calling for legislation to limit the number of impeachment motions with the same content, even across different parliamentary sessions.
The Constitutional Court received the presidential impeachment case on December 14 of the previous year and held 11 hearings until February 25. After over a month of deliberations, it delivered the ruling on this day.
Yoon’s impeachment trial set a record for the longest deliberation period among presidential cases, both in terms of the overall trial duration and the deliberation period after the hearings concluded.
At around 1:50 PM, Yoon, through his legal team, issued a brief statement: “I am deeply sorry and regretful for not meeting the expectations of the people.”
Yoon’s attorney, Yoon Gap-geun, told reporters after the ruling, “This is a decision that is legally unacceptable,” expressing “regret and dismay.”
National Assembly Judiciary Committee Chairman Chung Chung-rae, a member of the Democratic Party and part of the impeachment prosecution team, stated, “I deeply thank the Constitutional Court for its wise and historic ruling in defeating the enemy of the Constitution with the Constitution.”
The phoenix flag, a symbol of South Korea’s head of state, which had been raised at the main gate of the Yongsan Presidential Office, was lowered from its pole at approximately 11:40 AM that day.
[Yonhap News]