hankyoreh

Safety and Interior Minister Lee Sang-min checks his phone while attending a Cabinet meeting at the government complex in Sejong on Feb. 4. (presidential office pool photo)

On Wednesday, 103 days after the deadly crowd crush in Itaewon, Seoul, South Korea’s National Assembly voted to impeach Interior and Safety Minister Lee Sang-min. That places the question of whether Lee bears responsibility for the tragic accident in the hands of the Constitutional Court.

The opposition parties that pushed through the bill said there was ample reason to impeach Lee because he failed to prevent an accident that left 159 people dead, in violation of the Constitution, the Disaster and Safety Management Act, and the State Public Officials Act, and also because he allegedly gave false testimony during a parliamentary probe into the tragedy.

Since the unprecedented impeachment of a Cabinet member is so politically explosive, there’s considerable interest in whether the Constitutional Court thinks that responsibility for failing to prevent a disaster is suitable grounds for impeachment.

“Right now, we are at the moment of decision. We are here to fulfill the duty we failed to discharge in that place, on that day — on Oct. 29, 2022,” said Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Seung-won, who stood in the hall of the National Assembly on Wednesday to explain the bill of impeachment that had been submitted.

The impeachment bill, which was co-sponsored by 176 lawmakers, makes the following claim.

“The chief duties of the position held by the accused [that is, Lee Sang-min] are to oversee and coordinate disaster and safety management work and in so doing to carry out the state’s responsibility to prevent disasters and protect the public from the dangers thereof. The accused violated the law and the Constitution in a crisis situation in which the appropriate performance of his duties as minister of the interior and safety was more urgently demanded than ever before.”

Because Lee neglected his ministerial duty under the Disaster and Safety Management Act to swiftly set up a disaster response headquarters immediately after the disaster, opposition lawmakers said, rescue work did not proceed in a timely fashion, leading to greater loss of life. It was in that respect that Lee allegedly violated Article 10 of the Korean Constitution, which states that “all citizens shall be assured of human worth and dignity and have the right to pursuit of happiness.”

Opposition lawmakers also argued that Lee had betrayed his duties by waiting for his chauffeur after the accident, despite being briefed even later than President Yoon Suk-yeol, and ended up taking more than 80 minutes to reach the accident site. They also argued that the multiple inappropriate comments he had made, offending the families of the victims, amounted to a violation of his duty to maintain fidelity and dignity under the State Public Officials Act.

The impeachment bill also alleges that Lee perjured himself during the parliamentary probe in regard to acquiring the list of victims’ families and other matters.

“As a result of the total failure of his response [to the accident], the accused, Lee Sang-min, has lost the confidence of the public to such an extent that it would be impossible for him to carry out his duties as minister of the interior and safety,” Kim said.

The Constitutional Court is expected to begin hearing the trial soon after it receives the impeachment bill from the National Assembly. But securing a win for the prosecution will probably be a challenge.

In cases of impeachment, the chair of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee is to act as prosecutor. As it happens, that position is filled by Kim Do-eup, a lawmaker with the ruling People Power Party.

“Because the impeachment prosecutor is a legal position, I will have no choice but to act under the Constitution and the law, and I couldn’t argue something that isn’t in [the articles of impeachment],” Kim told reporters prior to the full session of the National Assembly on Wednesday.

The key question that the court will consider in determining whether or not to confirm Lee’s impeachment is whether he committed a serious violation of the law or Constitution in his capacity as the minister responsible for disaster response.

A law professor who specializes in constitutional law noted that prosecutors will have to refer to a specific law that has been violated, rather than the Constitution itself. “I suspect they’ll have a little trouble establishing that the interior and safety minister is personally responsible for the provisions of the Disaster and Safety Management Act,” the professor said.

“That’s something the impeachment prosecutor will have to demonstrate, and it’s unclear how diligently Kim Do-eup will apply himself to the task.”

Given the controversial nature of the case, some argue that the Constitutional Court will have many issues to take into consideration.

“Article 10 of the Constitution is connected to the duty and responsibility of the state, and treating that as a mere declaration would inevitably render the Constitution a dead letter. Along with examining actual violations of the law, the Constitutional Court should also be strict in assigning responsibility for this matter in consideration of practical circumstances and the ‘state responsibility’ sought by the Constitution,” said Oh Dong-seok, a professor at Ajou University Law School.

“Impeachment has the quality of being a kind of ‘disciplinary procedure.’ This is different in nature from getting acquitted in a criminal trial,” remarked an attorney who had previously served as a researcher at the Constitutional Court.

“In the end, the key question will be whether Lee Sang-min committed an impropriety bad enough to merit severe discipline. That will probably be discussed at length by the justices.”

To be confirmed, impeachment requires the consent of at least six of the nine justices of the Constitutional Court. The only time that has happened was in the impeachment trial of former President Park Geun-hye in 2017.

That means the outcome of Lee’s impeachment trial carries major political liabilities for the opposition parties as well. The Constitutional Court Act provides that the impeachment trial should take no more than 180 days, but that provision isn’t mandatory.

If the Constitutional Court rejects the impeachment bill, the Democratic Party could face political backlash for having rammed through an unreasonable impeachment with the goal of rattling the Yoon administration.

“We have three hurdles to clear moving forward: [passing the bill in] the full session, having the chair of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee serve as impeachment prosecutor, and gaining the approval of the Constitutional Court. While all three of those hurdles may be lofty and formidable, we will confront them with three sources of strength: our integrity as humans, our common sense as citizens, and our responsibility for the state,” said Park Hong-keun, the Democratic Party’s floor leader, in a meeting of lawmakers immediately before the full session on Wednesday.

People Power Party floor leader Joo Ho-young said that if the impeachment bill is rejected, “Koreans will definitely punish the Democratic Party in the [general] election next year for what it has gotten up to while holding a majority of seats.”

By Um Ji-won, staff reporter; Joh Yun-yeong, staff reporter; Jeon Gwang-joon, staff reporter; Shin Min-jung, staff reporter

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