hankyoreh

The session to announce the ruling on President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment

Choi Sun-sil made the difference. Even while the Constitutional Court concluded that President Park Geun-hye’s responsibility for the Sewol sinking did not constitute grounds for impeachment, it unanimously decided to uphold her impeachment because of her involvement in Choi’s government interference.

As Lee Jung-mi, acting president of the Constitutional Court, read the court’s decision on the National Assembly’s motion for impeachment against Park on Mar. 10, she addressed several procedural objections that had been raised to the trial. In regard to the legality of the process of the National Assembly’s vote on the impeachment motion, she said, “The charges in the motion of impeachment were specific enough for the defendant to exercise her right of self-defense. It was also the National Assembly’s prerogative whether or not to investigate the charges.” In regard to the fact that the motion passed the National Assembly without any debate, Lee said that “debate was not absolutely necessary according to the National Assembly Act.” In regard to the fact that the trial was heard by eight judges on the Constitutional Court instead of the full complement of nine, she said, “There are no legal or constitutional problems with the trial being heard by eight people.”

In the decision, Lee also addressed punitive personnel decisions for public servants in the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism that the National Assembly had claimed were “violations of the career public servant system and of Constitutional regulations about the president’s power to appoint public servants.” “We cannot conclude with certainty that Park made personnel decisions for public servants in the Culture Ministry because they were getting in the way of Choi Sun-sil’s pursuit of private gain, and it is also not clear why former Culture Minister Yoo Jin-ryong was dismissed or why former Chief of Staff Kim Ki-choon was asked to have six grade-one public servants submit their resignations,” Lee said.

Lee also rejected the argument that Park had violated the freedom of the press by exerting pressure to bring about the dismissal of the president of the Segye Ilbo newspaper, which had reported on the Chung Yoon-hoi document (which contained evidence that Chung had interfered in governance decisions). “Even in light of all the evidence, it’s not exactly clear who exerted this pressure, and even if Park was involved, there’s no conclusive evidence of this,” she said.

The Constitutional Court concluded that Park’s alleged dereliction of her duty to protect life and to sincerely fulfill her responsibilities at the time of the Sewol sinking (Apr. 16, 2014) could not be regarded as grounds for seeking her impeachment. “Even a disaster situation that puts people’s lives in jeopardy cannot be seen as creating the duty for the president to take specific, concrete action such as personally participating in the rescue activity. The concept of sincerity is relative and abstract, and impeachment cannot be requested on the grounds that she violated regulations about abstract duties,” Lee said.

What led to Park’s impeachment was Choi Sun-sil. “The president must exercise her powers according to the Constitution and according to the law, and she must be open and transparent in her performance of her official duties. But Park hid Choi Sun-sil’s involvement in government affairs, and she covered up allegations every time they were raised. This kept Constitutional bodies such as the National Assembly from exercising an effective check and kept the media from serving as an effective watchdog,” Lee said.

“Park’s Constitutional and legal violations continued throughout her entire time in office as she covered up the facts and punished those involved. During Park’s public statement, she promised to cooperate with the investigation, but she refused to allow the prosecutors or the Special Prosecutor to question her, and the Blue House blocked a search and seizure,” Lee said.

Such were the reasons that the court cited in concluding that there was a “tremendous benefit to be gained in terms of defending the Constitution by removing Park from office.”

By Kim Won-chul and Park Tae-woo, staff reporters

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]