Constitutional Court decides to impeach President Yoon unanimously cited

 

The Constitutional Court cited the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol as a unanimous opinion on the 4th. Acting Constitutional Court Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae read the order at 11:22 a.m. to dismiss the respondent presidential Yoon Suk Yeol. Former President Yoon lost his presidency upon reading the order. It has been 122 days since former President Yoon declared the Dec. 3 emergency martial law and 111 days since the impeachment motion was filed on Dec. 14 last year. ◇All five reasons for impeachment were recognized... The Constitutional Court recognized all five key reasons for impeachment, including former President Yoon's declaration of emergency martial law and the blockade of the National Assembly. "Under the Constitution and martial law, one of the substantial requirements for emergency martial law is war, incident, and equivalent state of emergency," the Constitutional Court said. "The unusual push for impeachment by the National Assembly (which claimed it as the reason for the declaration of martial law), unilateral exercise of legislative power, and attempts to cut the budget cannot be considered to have caused a serious crisis when martial law was declared." "Even considering all the circumstances claimed by the respondent, there was no crisis enough to objectively justify the respondent's judgment," he said.Constitutional judges are entering the Constitutional Court's judgment in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 4th to sentence former President Yoon Suk Yeol to the impeachment trial. /Reporter Kim Ji-ho Constitutional judges are entering the Constitutional Court's judgment in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 4th to sentence former President Yoon Suk Yeol to the impeachment trial. /Former President Kim Ji-ho, Rep. Yoon, has also violated procedural requirements for declaring emergency martial law, including deliberations and departments by the State Council. "Considering that the respondent (former President Yoon) did not explain the details of martial law (to the State Council members) and did not give other members an opportunity to state their opinions, it is difficult to say that the deliberation on the declaration of martial law took place," the Constitutional Court said. "Even though the Prime Minister and the State Council member did not make a department (副署) in the declaration, they declared martial law, and did not announce the date and time of its implementation, the region and the martial law commander, and did not notify the National Assembly without delay." Constitutional Court said that former President Yoon's attempt to block the National Assembly by mobilizing the military and police was also a violation of the Constitution and law. Referring to the fact that former President Yoon instructed former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun to send troops to the National Assembly and told former Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun to "break down the door and pull out the personnel inside because the quorum of the resolution seems not to have been filled," the judges said, "It interfered with the exercise of the authority of the National Assembly" and "violated the constitutional provisions that gave the National Assembly the right to demand the lifting of martial law, and violated the lawmakers' right to deliberate, vote, and non-arrest." Regarding the "Announcement No. 1," which stipulates the prohibition of political activities by the National Assembly and political parties, the Constitutional provisions that give the National Assembly the right to lift martial law, the constitutional provisions that stipulate the party system, representative democracy, and the principle of separation of powers were violated. The seizure and search of the National Election Commission and the attempt to confirm the location of legal professionals were also considered unconstitutional and illegal.◇"The 尹, betraying the Constitution's duty to protect the people," and "It betrayed the public's trust" regarding former President Yoon's actions of declaring martial law and putting military and police into the National Assembly. "It constitutes a serious violation of the law that cannot be tolerated from the perspective of protecting the constitution." They say it is a clear fault that has no choice but to cite impeachment with the consensus of all judges.The Constitutional Court said, "The respondent declared martial law with the aim of breaking the confrontation with the National Assembly and then denied national sovereignty and democracy by preventing the National Assembly from exercising its constitutional authority by sending military and police forces to seize and search the Central Election Commission. He ignored the governance structure set by the Constitution, and widely violated the basic rights of the people by issuing a decree." He said, "It violates the basic principles of the rule of law and the principle of the democratic state, and violates the constitutional order in itself and seriously harms the stability of the democratic republic." Former President Yoon's side insisted that it was a martial law for warning and peaceful purposes, saying, "Is there a two-hour civil war?" but the Constitutional Court refused to accept it. The National Assembly was able to quickly resolve to lift the emergency martial law because of the citizens' resistance and the passive performance of the military and police, so this does not affect the respondent's judgment of the importance of violating the law," the Constitutional Court said.The Constitutional Court said, "The respondent declared martial law in violation of the Constitution and laws, recreating the history of abuse of national emergency powers, shocking the people and causing confusion in all areas of society, economy, politics, and diplomacy." "As the president of all the people, he violated his duty to integrate the social community beyond the people who support him." He said, "By mobilizing the military and police to undermine the authority of constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly and violate the basic human rights of the people, he violated the responsibility of protecting the Constitution and seriously betrayed the trust of the people, the sovereign of the Democratic Republic." "Since the negative impact and ripple effect of the respondent's law violation on the constitutional order is significant, the benefits of protecting the Constitution from dismissing the respondent are recognized to be great enough to overwhelm the national loss resulting from the president's dismissal." Withdrawal of the crime of rebellion, it is possible without special procedural procedures... Judging that there was no procedural problem, the Constitutional Court judged that there were no procedural problems in the National Assembly's impeachment process. Regarding the National Assembly's exclusion of the violation of the crime of rebellion under the criminal law from the prosecution, he said, "It is permissible to withdraw or change the provisions of the applicable law without going through any special procedures while maintaining the same basic facts." Former President Yoon's claim that "if there were no violations of the rebellion in the reason for the prosecution, the decision quorum would not have been met" did not accept it, saying, "It is only a hypothetical argument and there is no basis for objectively supporting it." Regarding the claim of "abuse of the right to impeach," the Constitutional Court also said, "The decision process is legal, and the violation of the constitution or law of the accused (former President Yoon) has been clarified to a certain level," adding, "The right to impeachment cannot be considered to have been abused."