On February 25, the Constitutional Court wrapped up the impeachment trial of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, for his declaration of martial law on December 3. In addition to the impeachment, Yoon has also become the first sitting president to be indicted and arrested by South Korean investigation agencies over what prosecutors are calling an insurrection plot.
The National Assembly passed a motion to impeach Yoon on December 14. The Constitutional Court now must consider whether to uphold or reject the impeachment. All told, the trial took six weeks since it kicked off the first hearing on January 14.
Tuesday marked the eleventh hearing, with most of the time devoted to closing arguments from attorneys and lawmakers representing the National Assembly and from Yoon himself. The Constitutional Court is expected to reach a verdict in the coming weeks.
Yoon has consistently sought to justify his declaration of martial law. During his final remarks before the Constitutional Court, he again reiterated his stance on the series of events that occurred since December 3.
According to Yoon, the martial law he declared on December 3 was totally different from the terror people witnessed during 1980, when Chun Doo-hwan, who usurped power after his successful coup in December 12, 1979, declared martial law to suppress the democratic uprisings in the country. In Gwangju, the heart of democracy in South Korea, Chun mobilized troops to forcefully suppress the movement.
While trying to differentiate himself from Chun, Yoon argued that his declaration of martial law was an appeal to the public. This is one of the main claims made by the Yoon side during the trial.
According to Yoon, he declared martial law as a warning to the public, because he sensed that the country was in a ruinous state of crisis caused by the main opposition Democratic Party as well as unspecified “anti-state” and “pro-North Korea” forces. However, the opposition has repeatedly asked for – and not received – any concrete evidence to justify Yoon’s sense of crisis. The lawyers representing the National Assembly side pointed out that Yoon, if reinstated to office, could declare martial law again considering his subjective perspective on the status of the country.
Although Yoon was the one who showed up in a televised announcement and declared martial law, shocking the country, the president accused the main opposition Democratic Party and “anti-state forces” of repeating the term “martial law” to arouse traumatic memories from people who experienced the military dictatorship’s martial law in 1980.
Highlighting the number of troops deployed to the National Assembly, Yoon again argued that he was not serious about truly wresting control through martial law. Yoon had “clearly stated that the purpose of martial law was ‘an appeal to the public’ to the defense minister,” he claimed. He also emphasized that no military personnel and civilians were hurt.
This claim has fueled the anger of the opposition and the public.
The National Assembly was able to pass a resolution to force Yoon to retract the declaration of martial law thanks to the citizens who gathered at the parliament building to block the martial law troops from entering the chamber. According to Yoon’s narrative, the troops broke windows and entered the inside of the National Assembly in order to avoid clashes with the public and to head toward their position to “preserve order” in the parliament.
During his final speech, Yoon strongly denied the accusations that he deployed troops to the parliament to arrest key political figures, including the speaker of the National Assembly and the leader of the main opposition party. However, military commanders and Hong Jang-won, former first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS), gave testimony before the Constitutional Court that directly contradicted Yoon. The security officials said they were ordered to cooperate with the martial law troops to arrest the political figures and others, including former justices or journalists.
In attempting to rebut their testimonies, Yoon even accused Hong, who worked at the NIS, of conspiring against him. Ironically, Hong was one of the key assets in the NIS who had worked as an anti-North Korea spy over the decades.
Hong confessed that he really liked Yoon but could not carry out his order when he was told the arrest list by Yeo In-hyung, former chief of the Defense Counterintelligence Command, over the phone.
Also, the martial law troops did not actively carry out orders made by former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun on site. It has been revealed that those who were deployed to the National Assembly did not know they were being sent to their own parliament building before they arrived. Their conscientious objections to the orders they were being given allowed the parliament to lift martial law within three hours after the declaration.
In the end, it was opposition from ordinary citizens – and from within the security forces – that prevented the president from taking full control under martial law. However, Yoon has ironically used the failure of his martial law bid as the main proof of his innocence to the public – a claim he has stated repeatedly. This is the exact point fueling anger among the public who stood out on the streets in the freezing winter to demand that Yoon be impeached.
At the end of his speech, Yoon vowed to engage in political reform tasks, such as amending the constitution and the election system, if he is reinstated as president. Since he assumed office in May 2022, however, he never engaged in any dialogue with the opposition parties regarding these issues. Thus many view his pledge as a political strategy: Yoon is offering to shorten his term if the National Assembly can come up with a bill to amend the constitution and the election system.
Unlike Park Geun-hye’s impeachment case, South Korea is deeply polarized over Yoon’s fate. Recent polls show that the ruling People Power Party is receiving more support than the main opposition Democratic Party even though more than half of the public is in favor of impeaching Yoon. Despite Yoon’s declaration of martial law, the Democratic Party has not secured consolidated support from the majority of the public – a stark contrast to the situation following Park Geun-hye’s impeachment.
Still, there is no doubt among the opposition on the verdict of the Constitutional Court. Many law experts expect that the justices will likely uphold the impeachment of Yoon, considering the proof and testimonies given during the trial.
“Defendant Yoon Suk-yeol should be sacked for South Korea’s democracy and the development of the state,” Chung Chung-rae, the chairman of the National Assembly’s Legislative and Judiciary Committee, said during the hearing on Tuesday. Pointing out that Yoon is being investigated as a “ringleader” who committed treason by declaring martial law, Chung also highlighted that every citizen watched the chaos live on TV when the martial law troops were deployed to impede the parliament’s follow-up action to lift martial law.
Chung cited several reasons that the eight justices in the Constitutional Court should uphold Yoon’s impeachment: the requirements for declaring martial law were not met; the legitimate procedure to declare martial law was not followed; and Yoon ordered the military to impede the parliament’s efforts to lift martial law. Chun stressed the illegitimate context of the martial law decree and the martial law troop’s attempt to arrest key political figures and to trespass into the National Election Commission.
Chung framed Yoon as the one who tried to destroy South Korea’s democracy, built upon the civilian’s years-long democratic movement in the 1980s. He also accused Yoon of trying to ravage the National Assembly, which is the symbol of democracy and the constitution.
Reflecting on the country’s heartbreaking history in the 1980s, when the military dictatorship killed innocent civilians, Chung reiterated the severity of Yoon’s charges of treason and his action to declare martial law – the exact measure Chun’s military dictatorship used to control power permanently.
“The decision to remove defendant Yoon Suk-yeol from office will be a historical record showing that the South Korean Constitution is the real norm functioning in reality while showing South Korea’s astonishing resiliency,” Chung said.
Now that the trial has ended, the Constitutional Court will likely issue a ruling by mid-March. If the court upholds the impeachment of Yoon, South Korea will hold a special presidential election within 60 days from the ruling.