INTERVIEW | Impeachment Under Fire Reveals Flaws in President Yoon's Case

Prominent South Korean lawyer Kang Yong-suk recently sat down with JAPAN Forward in Tokyo to discuss President Yoon Suk-yeol's impeachment. Central to the debate is whether Yoon's declaration of martial law represents a clear constitutional violation or a legally permissible act during national emergencies.

The Democratic Party-led National Assembly argues that the declaration, along with the withdrawn insurrection charges, amounts to egregious unconstitutional behavior. Yoon's defense maintains that it was within Yoon's authority and that the judiciary should not interfere with presidential powers.

As South Korea's political landscape faces deep divisions, Kang scrutinizes the legal arguments and procedural irregularities that shape this unprecedented impeachment crisis in a detailed analysis.

Opposition Pursues Impeachment

Are there constitutional grounds that would justify President Yoon's impeachment?

Yoon's declaration of martial law — whether it violates the constitution or not — is the central issue. The National Assembly, currently controlled by the Democratic Party, argues that the declaration was an egregious unconstitutional act.

Initially, the impeachment motion included charges of insurrection. However, those were later withdrawn during the Constitutional Court's preliminary session. Ultimately, the key issue now is whether the declaration of martial law itself constitutes a legitimate act of presidential authority.

According to the law, martial law can be declared in times of war, national emergency, or similar situations. But whether and when to declare it is within the exclusive authority of the president. Yoon's side thus argues that the judiciary cannot weigh in on this issue.

After the declaration, only a few hundred troops were deployed to two locations: the National Assembly and the National Election Commission building. There were no arrests of politicians and no blocking of lawmakers from entering the Assembly to neutralize the institution.

Once the Assembly passed a resolution to lift martial law, the President immediately complied. So, we view all his actions within the confines of the South Korean constitution. The Constitutional Court is expected to rule on this on April 4.

How is the impeachment trial in the National Assembly proceeding?

Because bringing in too many witnesses and spending too much time would complicate things, the National Assembly dropped the insurrection charges from the impeachment motion. Those amounted to almost 80% of the charges. They focused entirely on whether the declaration of martial law itself was unconstitutional and illegal and whether that alone justified removal from office.

To prove this, they called two main witnesses: Special Operations Commander Kwak Jong-geun and First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won. However, both gave unreliable testimonies.

*Access is restricted at the Constitutional Court of South Korea in Seoul, April 2 (©Kyodo).*

Hong Jang-won appeared twice before the Constitutional Court. His two testimonies contradict each other. Initially, he claimed he took certain actions after receiving a phone call. However, CCTV evidence disproves his claims. Therefore, his testimony is now considered false, tainted, or untrustworthy.

Kwak's testimony also shifted. He initially claimed the President ordered lawmakers to be dragged out of the Assembly. Later, however, he said he didn't actually hear the term "lawmakers." That made his testimony vague and problematic.

These two witnesses were key to proving that Yoon ordered the arrest of political leaders or attempted to obstruct the National Assembly. But both testimonies are now considered unusable, either due to outside pressure or deliberate falsehoods. Without them, it's unclear how the case can be proven.

Procedural Flaws, Weak Grounds

That's why, from our perspective, this impeachment lacks the grounds to be considered a serious constitutional violation. Of the eight Constitutional Court judges, four may side with impeachment, but the other four are likely to reject it on these grounds. If the impeachment cannot be proven to involve egregious unconstitutional or unlawful behavior, it cannot proceed.

Yoon's defense team is also arguing that the trial itself is procedurally flawed. For example, the initial impeachment motion included insurrection, but that was removed. Removing 80% of the content would be like filing an indictment and then deleting most of the charges. Is that still a valid indictment? The motion should be rejected without prejudice.

Also, the National Assembly held two separate votes. The first vote failed because only 195 lawmakers participated, short of the required quorum of 200 lawmakers. A week later, they voted again on the same motion, and it passed with 204 votes in favor. However, under constitutional principles, you can't vote twice on the same matter. That's called double jeopardy. This is another reason the case should be dismissed.

The Constitutional Court is now using investigative records from the prosecution and police — despite the fact that, legally, the Court cannot request ongoing investigation records as evidence. That's a clear violation of the Court's own rules. Therefore, the defense argues this entire trial is filled with illegalities.

Impact on Domestic Political Dynamics

How has President Yoon's impeachment affected the dynamics between South Korea's major political parties?

The opposition holds nearly 190 of the 300 seats in the National Assembly. Even though Yoon is president, the ruling party barely has just over 100 seats. The opposition essentially controls legislation, the budget, and impeachment.

Fortunately for the ruling party, Yoon was elected in 2022. Despite their minority in the Assembly, they hold the presidency. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung dominates his party's internal politics. On the ruling party's side, the impeachment has caused internal strife. Han Dong-hoon, the former party leader, was blamed for triggering the impeachment crisis and has stepped down.

*South Korean opposition leader Lee Jae-myung holds a press conference at the National Assembly in Seoul on December 15, 2024 (©Kyodo)*

Interestingly, during these past four months, Yoon's approval rating has surged. It's even higher than his approval rating during his tenure. The public doesn't believe the impeachment was justified. So, ironically, the impeachment has strengthened both public support and internal unity in the ruling party.

Unlikely Progress

Prime Minister and First Acting President Han Duk-soo's impeachment was dismissed, and he was reinstated to office recently. For three months, the deputy prime minister, Choi Sang-mok, acted as president. In Korean politics, we've seen this before — in the Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye impeachments. Acting presidents generally aren't attacked politically because it looks bad for opposition leaders to go after someone perceived as being in the lower ranks.

For example, pension reform — a long-delayed issue — was passed during this acting government. Previously, parties fought over numbers and stalled the process. But under the acting leadership, both sides cooperated. Perhaps because neither side wanted to be blamed, the bill passed quickly.

For the ruling party, it's ideal for them to pass critical bills when there is no one to blame [for the presidential vacancy]. It shows that despite the drama, at the top the South Korean political system remains remarkably stable.

On Foreign Interference in South Korea

What about foreign interference in South Korea's elections, specifically China?

In the past, international concerns focused on North Korea. But that threat has lessened. China, originally non-aligned, has only one real ally — North Korea. Because they fought together in the Korean War, it's seen as a strategic partnership.

China views the Korean Peninsula as a buffer zone against the United States and Japanese maritime powers. It has what are called the first and second island chains — defense lines stretching into the Pacific. To defend itself, China believes it must control the [Korean] Peninsula. Xi Jinping reportedly told Donald Trump that Korea used to be a vassal state of China. That shows how deeply they view their influence.

After Hong Kong and Taiwan, South Korea is their next priority. Hong Kong has been absorbed. Taiwan is being prepped for invasion, and South Korea is either a simultaneous or next target. China absolutely does not want a strongly anti-China government in Seoul. So naturally, they interfere.

Do you see the shadow of Chinese tech in the impeachment?

In the past, China used internet trolls or influence groups like Wu Mao Dang. Now, we believe they've directly infiltrated the election system. It's no longer just comments or propaganda. It's deeper than that.

Gordon Chang, a US observer, said at the Conservative Political Action Conference that Chinese tech companies like Huawei and Tencent's algorithms were used to manipulate South Korean elections. In the past, people would have dismissed that as a conspiracy. But now, many citizens believe it. The idea that China interfered deeply in South Korean democracy is no longer fringe.

So, this isn't just a matter of domestic polarization. It's part of the global US-China power struggle, and Korea is on the front line. That's one of the biggest insights to come out of this impeachment crisis.

Why has Yoon's approval increased?

Christian groups and YouTubers have led the anti-impeachment movement. Even though most mainstream media leaned pro-impeachment, their influence has declined. Mainstream YouTubers now dominate conservative public opinion. Some even say that major papers like Chosun Ilbo lost 10–20% of their subscribers.

People remember what happened with the Park Geun-hye impeachment. They fear the same could destroy the conservative wing entirely. The President and his team have shared video messages explaining why martial law was declared, and people now understand. They feel he acted in advance, seeing threats others didn't. Public support has grown over time.

*Supporters of President Yoon Suk-yeol call for the dismissal of his impeachment near the Constitutional Court of South Korea on April 1 in Seoul (©Kyodo).*

What is your prediction for the Constitutional Court ruling?

In South Korea, three Constitutional Court judges are appointed by the president, three by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and three by the parliament. Parliamentary appointments are split among one opposition nominee, one ruling party nominee, and one compromise candidate.

Currently, two were appointed by former President Moon Jae In, two by a Supreme Court chief justice under Moon, one by a Supreme Court chief justice under Yoon, and one by President Yoon.

In politically neutral times, public opinion might sway them to a consensus. But right now, public opinion is split.

So I expect a 4–4 decision. For the impeachment to pass, six votes are needed. A 4–4 tie means dismissal. Therefore, we anticipate the impeachment will be dismissed.

Author: Daniel Manning