Can South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol be suspended without impeachment?
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
South Korea's ruling People Power Party has now strategically shifted towards calls for President Yoon Suk Yeol's orderly resignation.
PHOTO: AFP
Follow topic:
SEOUL – South Korea is facing a political moment as its ruling People Power Party, led by its chairman Han Dong-hoon, grapples with an unprecedented challenge: the fate of President Yoon Suk Yeol.
While the opposition Democratic Party of Korea has pushed for Mr Yoon’s impeachment following allegations of unconstitutional martial law declarations, Mr Han and the People Power Party have now strategically shifted towards calls for Mr Yoon’s orderly resignation,
Following Mr Yoon’s announcement on Dec 7 that he would let the ruling party manage state affairs, and the subsequent failure of the impeachment motion,
“Through an orderly early departure of the President, we will minimise the chaos for the Republic of Korea and its people, stabilise the political situation and restore liberal democracy,” said Mr Han Dong-hoon.
By advocating for Mr Yoon’s voluntary and controlled resignation rather than impeachment, Mr Han Dong-hoon appears to be attempting to preserve party unity and avoid empowering the opposition’s leading figure, Democratic Party head Lee Jae-myung, according to local reports.
This strategic move reflects concerns within the ruling party that an impeachment – which would be seen as a humiliating end to Mr Yoon’s presidency – could politically damage the conservative ruling party and simultaneously pave the way for an opposition victory in the next presidential election.
These fears are not without precedent. Following the impeachment of the conservative ruling party’s then President Park Geun-hye in 2017, the subsequent snap election led to the decisive victory of Mr Moon Jae-in, the opposition’s leading figure at the time.
Similarly, an impeachment of Mr Yoon could galvanise public support for the Democratic Party and Lee, despite the legal challenges currently facing him.
By strategically managing Mr Yoon’s exit, the People Power Party can focus on stabilising itself and preparing for the next election cycle without conceding political momentum to the opposition.
Lee has been regarded as a leading contender for the next presidential race, after narrowly losing to Mr Yoon
However, the opposition leader is facing trials in five cases, including his alleged involvement in North Korean remittance and a bribery case linked to land development scandals in Seongnam.
In November, Lee received a suspended one-year prison term
He will lose his parliamentary seat if a fine exceeding one million won (S$943) is confirmed by the top court in this case.
Additionally, his eligibility to run for office will be revoked for the next five years, barring him from participating in the next presidential election.
This indicates that the ruling party most likely aims to maintain the current state of affairs until at least one of these cases results in a final decision at the top court that could bar Lee from running for president.
But there are speculations that Mr Yoon’s remarks and the ruling bloc’s promises should be considered invalid in the country which adopted a presidential system in the latest amendment of the Constitution in 1987.
Gwangju Mayor Kang Ki-jung criticised the joint statement on Dec 8, calling it “invalid and unconstitutional”.
In his Facebook post, Mr Kang wrote: “With what power are they claiming to take charge of state affairs? Who has delegated such authority to them?”
Mr Kang said the prime minister can assume authority to manage state affairs only through procedures strictly defined by the Constitution, urging the national assembly to proceed with impeachment against Mr Yoon.
Mr Kang also condemned ruling party chair Han’s role, and said it was unconstitutional for the party leader to determine the timing of the President’s resignation. “Such actions disturb the constitutional order,” he said.
Mr Kang added that “only impeachment can restore constitutional democracy” and called on the People Power Party chairman to “stop playing president” and return to constitutional norms.
Also, Representative Han Min-soo, spokesman for the main opposition Democratic Party, claimed there is no legal ground that would allow a ruling party leader to seize executive power to normalise state affairs.
“In today’s statement, Han (of the ruling party) said that Yoon was ‘practically’ excluded from his duty. How can the former justice minister make a fool of our people through the deceitful expression of ‘practically’ without suggesting any legal ground?” Mr Han Min-soo said.
Other opposition party leaders echoed Mr Han Min-soo’s argument.
“No single clause in the Constitution suggests that a president has the authority to entrust his executive power to a certain political party, and a political party’s leader has the power to leave the president ostracised from his power,” said Ms Her Eun-a, leader of the minor opposition New Reform Party.
In South Korea’s tumultuous modern history laden with struggles for democracy, a prime minister would serve as the acting president in case a president is suspended or removed.
But the joint statement on Dec 8 indicated nothing specific about the relationship between the chief of the ruling party and the Prime Minister. Mr Han Dong-hoon and Mr Han Duck-soo left the scene after the joint statement without taking questions from reporters.
Under the Constitution, a South Korean president is the commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces, represents the nation vis-a-vis foreign states and has the power to appoint leaders of institutions enshrined in the Constitution.
Without any binding changes to the Constitution, Mr Yoon may take his power back from the party whenever he wants, an expert said.
“The president can take the lead again any time he changes his mind,” political science professor Shin Yul of Myongji University told The Korea Herald.
“No one will be able to stop him, if Yoon insists.”
According to legal experts in South Korea, the suspension of presidential duties in the country is effectively limited to either impeachment or resignation.
Impeachment in South Korea is a highly formalised process that begins with the national assembly passing a motion by a two-thirds majority.
The case is then sent to the Constitutional Court, which determines whether the president violated the law or the Constitution. If upheld, impeachment results in the immediate and permanent removal of the president from office.
The consequences of impeachment are profound. From a legal and historical standpoint, a president’s removal is officially recorded as a violation of the Constitution, which not only tarnishes the president’s legacy but also casts significant doubts on his presidency as a whole.
For this reason, impeachment is often perceived as the most severe form of political accountability.
For example, former president Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in 2017 on charges of corruption and abuse of power, lost a range of privileges reserved for former leaders.
These include the presidential pension, lifetime medical benefits and logistical support. Additionally, any potential for political rehabilitation becomes almost impossible, as impeachment is a permanent stain on the record.
Impeachment also affects the president’s political allies and their party. The disgrace attached to the process can alienate voters, fracture the support base and lead the party into political decline, as evidenced by the fallout faced by the conservative bloc after Ms Park’s impeachment. This paved the way for the opposition’s Moon to rise to power in snap elections.
On the other hand, resignation occurs when a president steps down voluntarily before his term officially ends. While resignation may come amid significant political or public pressure, it is not formally accompanied by the stigma of unconstitutional or illegal behaviour.
Therefore, under the Former Presidents Act, presidents stepping down voluntarily can continue receiving their presidential pension, which amounts to 70 per cent of their annual salary, along with lifetime medical coverage for both them and their spouse. They also retain access to personal security and logistical support.
For instance, based on Mr Yoon’s annual salary for 2024, which is about 254.93 million won (S$240,400), he would receive an annual pension of about 178.45 million won if he were to step down voluntarily.
Crucially, resignation preserves a president’s dignity and legacy, making it easier for him to remain a prominent public figure.
Another theoretical option for suspending Mr Yoon’s duties is petitioning the Constitutional Court to take action. However, such an approach has proven to lack practical effect in reality.
For instance, in 2016, a Korean civic group called the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice submitted an injunction to the Constitutional Court requesting the immediate suspension of Ms Park’s powers.
The court, however, did not issue any ruling, leaving the matter unresolved. It was not until Dec 9, 2016, that the national assembly passed a motion to impeach Ms Park, which ultimately led to her removal from office.
More recently, earlier in 2024, former president Moon submitted a petition for an injunction to suspend Mr Yoon’s duties amid controversies surrounding his governance. However, the Constitutional Court dismissed the case on June 18. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
