—Yoomin Won, Seoul National University School of Law
[Editor’s Note: This is one of our ICONnect columns. For more information on our 2025 columnists, see here.]
On April 4, 2025, South Korea’s Constitutional Court upheld the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol in a unanimous decision. This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the country’s democratic history.
On December 3, 2024, Yoon stunned the country by declaring emergency martial law. He ordered military troops to drag out lawmakers from the parliament. He attempted to track the whereabouts of judges and politicians. (For details, see my earlier posts here and here). The martial law was lifted six hours later at the National Assembly’s request. Since then, South Korea has faced political and constitutional crisis, particularly surrounding the appointments of Constitutional Court justices (see Joh’s earlier post). Meanwhile, Yoon faces insurrection charges, currently under trial amid jurisdictional uncertainties and power struggles among investigative agencies (see Kim’s earlier post). Korean citizens were divided into two groups, one demanding impeachment and the other dismissal of the impeachment trial, both occupying main roads of Seoul. Tensions escalated into violence when the Seoul Western District Court decided to extend Yoon’s detention. Yoon’s supporters stormed the courthouse, damaging property in protest. In such a volatile climate, I was deeply concerned about how the public would respond to the Court’s decision—regardless of the outcome.
Faced with this constitutional crisis, the Court issued a 114-page decision with a crystal-clear message. The Court upheld the impeachment of Yoon in an 8-0 unanimous decision (2024Hun-Na8). While there were individual opinions regarding procedural aspects, not a single dissent was made on the merits of the impeachment. The decision was delivered with clarity and conviction. The clear message reached the public. So did the presidential office, which lowered the phoenix flag 20 minutes after the decision. Yoon immediately lost all presidential privileges and immunities as president. He now faces not only insurrection charges but also other criminal investigations from which he had previously been shielded by presidential immunity.
The Constitutional Court held that Yoon’s declaration of martial law and related actions violated the Constitution and laws of South Korea, and that these violations are grave enough to warrant his removal from office. The Court accepted all five grounds for impeachment presented by the National Assembly, and rejected Yoon’s arguments. First, neither the substantive or procedural requisites to declaring an emergency were met. On December 3, 2024, the national emergency did not exist and there was no need to mobilize military forces, thus the substantive requirements of martial law were not met. The procedural requirements were not met either, since the martial law was declared without deliberation by a State Council (cabinet meeting), signatures of the Council members, public announcement, and notification to the National Assembly. As such, Yoon’s declaration of martial law breached the Constitution and the Martial Law Act. Second, the deployment of the military and police forces to block lawmakers’ access to parliament and forcibly remove them undermined representative democracy and separation of power, as well as lawmaker’s rights and immunities and freedom of political parties. Third, the Martial Law Decree itself infringed upon representative democracy, local autonomy, freedom of political party, people’s sovereignty, and basic order of free democracy. It further violated the prohibition of arrest and search without a warrant and fundamental rights such as political freedom, freedom of press and assembly, collective action, and occupation. Fourth, the search and seizure of the National Election Commission breached the prohibition of search without a warrant and the Commission’s independence. Fifth, Yoon’s attempt to track the whereabouts of the former justices of the Supreme Court violated the independence of the judiciary. Based on these findings, the Constitutional Court concluded that his actions constituted grave violations of the Constitution and laws, and that the public interest in upholding the Constitution through Yoon’s removal far outweighed the costs of dismissing a sitting president.
Notably, the Court emphasized that Yoon’s actions revived the dark legacy of abusing emergency powers in South Korea. Historically, emergency powers have been misused to consolidate authoritarian control and suppress dissent rather than respond to genuine crises. The Court cited abuses by former presidents: Rhee Syngman’s martial law in 1952, Park Chung-Hee’s declarations in 1971, 1972, and 1979, Chun Doo-Hwan and Roh Tae-Woo’s martial law expansion in 1980. Since the last martial law declared in 1979 and lifted in 1981, such powers had not been invoked until Yoon’s move in December 2024. The Court noted this long absence was a natural result of democracy taking root and the people’s firm commitment to upholding the Constitution. The return of martial law for political purposes, after 45 years, shocked the public, which had come to believe such abuses were relegated to the past.
Perhaps the most meaningful implication from this crisis is that South Korea now has a judicial precedent declaring that abuse of emergency power is unconstitutional – thus establishing grounds for impeachment. The Korean courts have acknowledged the unconstitutionality of previous emergency decrees, but only after the transition to democracy had already occurred. Back then, the public could do little but endure. Today, South Korean democracy has matured to the point that it can call out abuses for what they are and hold leaders accountable. On the night martial law was declared, the National Assembly succeeded in passing a resolution to demand its immediate lift—an act that would have been unthinkable and impossible during the authoritarian era, but is a testament to the long-term progress of South Korea’s democratic safeguards. Now, with the Constitutional Court’s impeachment decision, the country has a clear legal standard for use of emergency powers. Those who abuse them will be held responsible—both politically and legally. This precedent is a vital safeguard against future democratic backsliding.
South Korea will hold its next presidential election on June 3, 2025, 60 days after the impeachment. What it has learned since last December is clear: No leader can exercise power arbitrarily. Especially not emergency power. No pretext of a national crisis can justify setting aside the hard-won democratic safeguards that define South Korea today.
Suggested citation: Yoomin Won, South Korean Constitutional Court Upholds Impeachment of President Yoon for Abusing Emergency Power, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Apr. 10, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/south-korean-constitutional-court-upholds-impeachment-of-president-yoon-for-abusing-emergency-power/
Comments